Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai
Sunshield Chemicals Ltd , Mumbai vs Assessee on 9 December, 2015
आयकर अपील
य अ धकरण "H" यायपीठ मंब
ु ई म ।
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "H" BENCH, MUMBAI
BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND
SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 5045 /Mum/2010
( नधा रण वष / Assessment Year : 2007-08)
Sunshield Chemicals Pvt. बनाम/ Income Tax Officer-
Ltd., 7(2)(3), Mumbai
v.
C/o, Kalyaniwalla & Mistry
Army & Navy Building,148,
Mahatma Gandhi Road
Mumbai-400 001
थायी ले खा सं . /PAN :AABCG3365J
(अपीलाथ /Appellant) .. ( यथ / Respondent)
Assessee by Shri P.J.Pardiwala & Ms
Aarti Sathe
Revenue by : Shri Nitin Waghmode ,DR
ु वाई क तार ख / Date of Hearing
सन : 02-11-2015
घोषणा क तार ख /Date of Pronouncement : 09-12-2015
आदे श / O R D E R
PER RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
This appeal, filed by the assessee company, being ITA No. 5045/Mum/2011, is directed against the order dated 29-03-2011 passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- 13, Mumbai (Hereinafter called "the CIT(A)"), for the assessment year 2007-08.
2 ITA 5045/M/10
2. The assessee company has raised the following grounds of appeal in the memo of appeal filed with the Tribunal:-
1) The learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in denying the set off in respect of the current year's depreciation allowable against the capital gains for the year.
2) The learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in not specifying/ carrying forward the unabsorbed depreciation and brought forward business losses of the Appellant.
3) The learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) erred in directing the Assessing Officer to make addition on account of the provisions of Section 145A of the Act.
4) The learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) erred in directing the Assessing officer to invoke the provisions of Section 145A of the Act without making any adjustment to the opening stock of the Appellant.
3 ITA 5045/M/10
5) The learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals ) erred in not directing the Assessing Officer to re-compute the opening stock, purchases, sales and closing stock in accordance with the provisions of Section 145A of the Act."
3. The Brief facts of the case are that the assessee company is engaged in the business of chemicals. The case of the assessee company was selected for scrutiny for framing assessment u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act,1961(Hereinafter called "the Act") read with Section 143(2) of the Act. The assessee company e-filed its return of income on 30.10.2007 declaring total income of (-) Rs. 4,46,07,722. Notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued to the assessee company on 18.08.2008.The original return was revised by the assessee company by filing revised return of income on 30.03.2009 revising the loss to (-) Rs.32,92,004/-. The loss is reduced in the revised return as compared to the original return of income filed with Revenue due to declaration of additional income being long term capital gain of Rs.4,27,50,000/- on sale of tenancy rights in office premises at Janki Niwas, Dadar, Mumbai.
4. During the course of assessment proceedings the learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter called "the AO") observed that the assessee 4 ITA 5045/M/10 company has shown Business Loss of Rs.4,46,09,522/- which included Depreciation u/s 32 of the Act amounting to Rs.3,20,97,526/- which the assessee company has set off against the Long Term Capital Gains of Rs.4,27,50,000/-. Thus, the assessee company has set off the Business Loss and the Depreciation against the Long Term Capital Gain earned during the assessment year.
5. In the opinion of the AO , Section 71 of the Act allows for adjustment of business loss against the income under the head 'capital gains'. As per the AO, the Business Loss is to be computed as per Section 29 of the Act i.e. Section 32 is to be given effect for computing business loss. Section 32(2) of the Act restricts the allowable depreciation to the profits and gains of business. Therefore, in the opinion of the AO, the current year's allowable depreciation cannot exceed the business income. Hence as per AO, the assessee's claim of set off depreciation against capital gains cannot be allowed. The AO then referred to provisions of Section 29 and 32(2) of the Act to come to the conclusion that if there is no income under the head 'profits and gains of business' or where the profit under the head business is less than the depreciation allowable u/s 32(1) of the Act, then the allowance of part of the allowance to which effect cannot be given shall be added to the depreciation allowance for the next previous year and shall be set off 5 ITA 5045/M/10 against the income under the head "profits and gains of business' left after allowing deductions u/s 30 to 43D of the Act (excluding depreciation allowance u/s 32 of the Act) and if the income under the head 'profit and gains of business' is not sufficient for the depreciation allowance, then the same is to be treated as per the Section 32(2) of the Act i.e. to be added to the depreciation allowable u/s 32(1) of the Act next year.The AO then referred to the provisions of Section 71, 72 and 32 of the Act and reconciled the said Sections in a manner to come to conclusion that the depreciation of the current year is not to be allowed to be set off against the income under the head 'long term capital gains' vide assessment orders dated 18.12.2009 u/s 143(3) of the Act.
6. Aggrieved by the afore-stated assessment order dated 18.12.2009, the assessee company filed first appeal with the CIT(A) . The assessee company relied upon the following case laws in support of its contentions:
1. CIT v. Jaipuria China Clay Mines Private Limited-59 ITR 555(SC),
2. Rajapalayam Mills Limited v. CIT -115 ITR 777(SC),
3. Garden Silk Wvg Factory-189 ITR 512(SC),
4. CIT v. Virmani Inds. P. Ltd. & Ors.-216 ITR 607(SC), 6 ITA 5045/M/10
5. Rallies India Limited in ITA No. 4898/M/2006.
In the light of the above decisions , the assessee company argued that the assessee company has set off the depreciation allowance for the year under consideration computed as per provisions of Section 32(1) of the Act against the long term capital gains for the year and such set off is allowable as per provisions of Section 71 of the Act.The assessee company contended that the provisions of Section 32(2) of the Act are not attracted in the appellant company's case and the reliance of AO on Section 32(2) of the Act is devoid of merit and hence the set off of the depreciation against the long term capital gains for the year be allowed to the assessee company .
7. The CIT(A) rejected the contentions of the assessee company vide orders dated 29-03-2010 on the grounds that under Section 32(2) of the Act r.w.s. Section 14 of the Act , the words profits and gains are specifically confined to 'profits and gains of business' only and thus , current year depreciation which could not be set off against the 'profits and gains of business' shall be carried forward to be adjusted as per provisions of Section 32(2) of the Act r.w.s. 72(2) of the Act and Section 32(2) of the Act also stipulates that current year depreciation can be set off only against 'profits and gains of business' and not other heads of income. The CIT(A) 7 ITA 5045/M/10 also held that the case laws relied upon by the asssessee company mostly pertained to old Income Tax Act of 1922 whereby under the old Act of 1922 vide Section 6 , the word profits and gains has been attributed to various other heads of income also viz. salary/interest on securities, income from properties and capital gains while the new 1961 Act vide Section 14 restrict the words 'profits and gains' to 'profits and gains of business or profession' only.
8. Aggrieved by the orders dated 29-03-2010 passed by the CIT(A), the assessee company is in appeal before the Tribunal.
9. The Ld. Counsel of the assessee company submitted that the assessee company has set off unabsorbed depreciation of Rs.3,20,97,526/- against the long term capital gains earned during the year. The AO has not allowed set-off of unabsorbed depreciation against the long term capital gains earned during the year by the assessee company on the grounds that Section 32(2) of the Act restricts the allowable depreciation to the extent of the profits and gains of business and that the current year's depreciation cannot exceed the profits and gains chargeable to tax for that previous year. The ld. Counsel drew our attentions to Section 32(2) , 71(2) and 72(2) of the Act to contend that assessee company has rightly set off the unabsorbed depreciation of Rs.3,20,97,526/- against the long term capital 8 ITA 5045/M/10 gains earned by the assessee company during the year. The Ld. Counsel relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT v. Virmani Industries Private Limited in (1995)216 ITR 607(SC) , judgment of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Ambika Silk Mills Company Limited v. CIT in (1952) ITR 58 (Bom.) and the decision in the case of Rallis India Limited v. JCIT in ITA No. 4889/Mum/2006 to contend that the assessee company is entitled for set-off of un-absorbed depreciation allowance against the long term capital gain earned by the assessee company.While on the other hand the Ld. DR relied upon the orders of the authorities below.
10. We have considered the rival contentions and perused the material on record including case laws. We have observed that the assessee company has set off unabsorbed depreciation of Rs.3,20,97,526/- against the long term capital gains earned during the year which has not been allowed by the AO and the same was confirmed by the CIT(A).
11. We have observed that this issue has been decided by the co-ordinate bench of the Tribunal in ITA No. 4898/Mum/06 in the case of Rallis India Limited v. JCIT for the assessment year 2002-03 in favour of the taxpayer by holding that the taxpayer is entitled to set off of unabsorbed carry forward depreciation against the income computed under the head "long 9 ITA 5045/M/10 term capital gain" of the year under consideration and the relevant para's are as under:
"7. Before proceeding further, we would like to see the provisions of Section 32(2) as existed prior to AY 1997-98, existed from AY 1997-98 to AY 2001-02 and existed from AY 2002-03 onwards, which are as under:
Section 32(2) as it existed prior to AY 1997-98 :
"(2) Where, in the assessment of the assessee, 34[***] full effect cannot be given to any allowance 35[under clause (ii) of sub-section (1)] in any previous year, owing to there being no profits or gains chargeable for that previous year, or owing to the profits or gains chargeable being less than the allowance, then, subject to the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 72 and sub-section (3) of section 73, the allowance or part of the allowance to which effect has not been given, as the case may be, shall be added to the amount of the allowance for depreciation for the following previous year and deemed to be part of that allowance, or if there is no such allowance for that previous year, be deemed to be the allowance for that previous year, and so on for the succeeding previous years."
10 ITA 5045/M/10 Section 32(2) as it existed from AY 1997-98 to AY 2001-02:
"[(2) Where in the assessment of the assessee full effect cannot be given to any allowance under clause (ii) of sub-section (1) in any previous year owing to there being no profits or gains chargeable for that previous year or owing to the profits or gains being less than the allowance, then, the allowance or the part of allowance to which effect has not been given (hereinafter referred to as unabsorbed depreciation allowance), as the case may be,--
(i) shall be set off against the profits and gains, if any, of any business or profession carried on by him and assessable for that assessment year ;
(ii) if the unabsorbed depreciation allowance cannot be wholly set off under clause (i), the amount not so set off shall be set off from the income under any other head, if any, assessable for that assessment year;
(iii) if the unabsorbed depreciation allowance cannot be wholly set off under clause (i) and
11 ITA 5045/M/10 clause (ii), the amount of allowance not so set off shall be carried forward to the following assess- ment year and--
(a) it shall be set off against the profits and gains, if any, of any business or profession carried on by him and assessable for that assessment year ;
(b) if the unabsorbed depreciation allowance cannot be wholly so set off, the amount of unabsorbed depreciation allow-
ance not so set off shall be carried forward to the following assessment year not being more than eight assessment years immediately succeeding the assessment year for which the aforesaid allowance was first computed ."
Section 32(2) as it exists from AY 2002-03 till date:
"[(2) Where, in the assessment of the assessee, full effect cannot be given to any allowance under sub- section (1) in any previous year, owing to there being no profits or gains chargeable for that previous year71,
12 ITA 5045/M/10 or owing to the profits or gains chargeable being less than the allowance, then, subject to the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 72 and sub-section (3) of section 73, the allowance or the part of the allowance to which effect has not been given, as the case may be, shall be added to the amount of the allowance for depreciation for the following previous year and deemed to be part of that allowance, or if there is no such allowance for that previous year, be deemed to be the allowance for that previous year, and so on for the succeeding previous years.]"
7.1 We have also seen the decisions of the Apex court in the case of Virmani Industries Ltd(Supra) copy of which is placed on record and found that the wordings of sec.32(2) as existed for AY 2002-03 are identical to the wordings to sec. 32(2) with the year before the Hon'ble Supreme Court i.e. AY 1956-57.
7.2 The facts before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Virmani Industries Ltd.(supra) were as under:
13 ITA 5045/M/10 "The assessee was engaged in the manufacture of soap and oil during the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1956-57. The business was stopped in that year where after the factory was let out on hire. Ten years later, i.e. in the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1965-66, the assessee started the business of manufacture of steel pipes. For the purpose of this business, a part of the old machinery used in the manufacture of soap and oil was utilized.
In the assessment proceeding relating to the assessment year 1965-66 , the assessee claimed that the unabsorbed depreciation , to the extent it pertained to the old machinery utilized in the new business, should be brought forward and set off against the profits of the new business. This claim was rejected by the ITO and by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. This claim was rejected by the ITO and by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The Tribunal upheld the assessee's claim and the High Court affirmed the decision of the Tribunal."
14 ITA 5045/M/10 7.3 On appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed and has held as under:
"The words "no profits or gains chargeable for that year" in section 32(2) of the I T Act , 1961 are not confined to profits and gains derived from business. They refer to the totality of the profits or gains computed under the various heads and chargeable to tax. It is, therefore, clear that effect must be given to depreciation allowance first against the profits and gains of the particular business whose income is being computed under section 28 and if the profits of that business are not sufficient to absorb the depreciation allowance, the allowance to the extent to which it is not absorbed would be set off against the profits of any other business and if a part of the depreciation allowance still remains unabsorbed , it would be liable to be set off against the profits and gains chargeable under any other head of and it is only if some part of the depreciation allowance still remains that it can be carried forward to the next assessment year. But where any part of the depreciation remains unabsorbed after being set off against the total income 15 ITA 5045/M/10 chargeable to tax, it can be carried forward to the following year and set off against the year's income and so on for succeeding years. The method adopted by the statute for achieving the result is that the carried forward depreciation allowance is deemed to be part of and stands on exactly the same footing as the current depreciation for the assessment year and is this allowable as a deduction."
7.4 While deciding the issue, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has followed the earlier decisions of the Apex Court in the case of Jaipuria China Clay Mines (P) Ltd. in 59 ITR 555, Rajapalayam Mills Ltd. in 115 ITR 777 which were rendered by the Bench consisting of three judges. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has also observed that since the Bench headed by three Hon'ble judges, therefore, the decisions of earlier Bench are binding on them. At page 216 in para 'f' , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that ;
"We have extracted the relevant observations from both the judgments hereinabove , which say that the unabsorbed depreciation allowance has not only to be set of against other heads of income in the relevant 16 ITA 5045/M/10 previous year but where it is carried forward, it "stands on exactly the same footing as current depreciation."
8. After observing these observations , the Hon'ble Suprem Court has answered the reference application in favour of the assessee and against the department.
9. After going through the decision of the Apex Court and the facts of the present case, we find that both the lower authorities were not justified in not accepting the claim of the assessee.The ld. CIT(A) also not justified in holding that the decision of the Apex Court is not relevant for AY 2002-03 . As stated above, the wordings of Section 32(2) are similar to the wordings of sec. 32(2) existing prior to AY 1997-98. Therefore, we have no hesitation in holding that the decision of the Apex Court is squarely applicable on the facts of the present case. Accordingly, we direct the AO to allow the set off of carry forward unabsorbed depreciation against the income computed under the head "long term capital gain" of the year under consideration. We order accordingly."
17 ITA 5045/M/10 Perusal of the wordings of Section 32(2) as applicable to assessment year 2007-08 i.e. the impugned assessment year will reveal that the wordings are similar to the wordings as applicable for assessment year 2002-03 for which the appeal in the case of Rallis India Limited(supra) in ITA No. 4898/Mum/06 was decided by the Tribunal and facts are identical. Respectfully following the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Virmani Industries Private Limited (1995) 216 ITR 607(SC) and decision of Co-ordinate Bench in the case of Rallis India Limited v. JCIT in ITA no. 4898/Mum/2006 , we hold that the assessee company is entitled to set off of unabsorbed depreciation against long term capital gain earned during the year by the assessee company.We order accordingly.
12. The other grievance of the assessee company are contained in Ground No 3 to 5 which are mainly with respect to the CIT(A) directing the AO to invoke the provisions of Section 145A of the Act by making additions to the closing stock and that too without making corresponding adjustments to the opening stock , purchase and sale of the assessee company.
13. The AO observed that the assessee company has not included excise duty in the valuation of the closing stock as per mandate of Section 145A of the Act whereby the assessee company should have included excise 18 ITA 5045/M/10 duty component of purchase price of raw material while valuing the closing stock of raw material, WIP and finished goods. The assessee company submitted that the non inclusion of the same will have no effect on its profits which contention was rejected by the AO. The AO held that the plain reading of Section 145A of the Act makes it clear that after computing profit and gains of business or profession as per the method of accounting regularly employed by the assessee company , the profits shall be further adjusted to include excise duty component of cost paid by the assessee company not withstanding any right (i.e. cenvat) arising as a consequence to such payment and hence excise component of the cost of inputs i.e. raw material/packaging material etc has to included in closing stock valuation irrespective of cenvat claim. In the opinion of AO , the excise duty component of raw material is an indirect cost charged by the manufacturer of raw material from the assessee company and is part of the cost of raw material and hence it is to be included as part of closing stock of finished goods and the modvat/cenvat scheme only allows a rebate on excise duty payable on sale/clearance of goods manufactured by assessee company calculated on the basis of excise duty rate applicable on raw material which is actually paid by manufacturer of raw material. The AO held that reliance of the assessee company on the guidance note issued by the ICAI for tax audit cannot override the specific provisions of the Act as contained in Section 145A of the Act. The AO referred to the 19 ITA 5045/M/10 'inclusive method' and 'exclusive method' as per guidance note issued by the ICAI for tax audit in his assessment order which are contained in page 7-8 of assessment order which showed that there will not be any impact on profits whether 'inclusive method' or 'exclusive method' but the AO held that the guidance note issued by ICAI allowed the advance credit of cenvat to be taken on the raw material which is not consumed and further advance cenvat credit is taken pertaining to raw material component in finished goods which are yet to be cleared for excise payment. Thus, in nutshell, the AO held that this mechanism of advance credit allows the assessee to claim benefit of set off of Cenvat in respect of entire duty paid though the corresponding goods may still remain in closing stock as raw material or finished goods on which no liability to pay duty has arisen. Thus, the AO based on the average rate of duty on purchases work out excise duty of Rs.84,64,424/- on value of closing stock of raw material, WIP and Finished goods held by the assessee company at the year end and corresponding addition to the returned income was made . The AO based on the average rate of sales tax in the value of raw material , WIP and Finished goods made an addition of Rs.17,73,391/- to the closing stock of raw material, WIP and closing stock of the assessee company held as at the year end by the assessee company and correspondingly addition to the returned income was made to that extent. As per the AO , the excise duty and sales tax is to be added to closing stock of Raw material,Work-in-
20 ITA 5045/M/10 progress and Finished goods held by the assessee company at the year end as per Section 145A of the Act while no corresponding adjustment in the opening stock of Raw material, Work-in-progress and Finished goods is to made relying on the decision of Melmould Corporation v. CIT 202 ITR 789(Bom.).
14. Aggrieved by the assessment order of the AO, the assessee company filed first appeal with the CIT(A) and the CIT(A) held that the assessee company should have prepared its profit and loss account as per provisions of Section 145A of the Act whereby the excise duty and VAT/sales tax are to be included in purchase, sale and closing stock while no adjustment is required in the opening stock and resultant change , if any is to be added to the income of the assessee company. The CIT(A) held that the anomaly may arise due to the fact that the assessee company has utilized PLA A/c instead of Cenvat/VAT credit available for payment of the Duty to the Government A/c. The amount of payment made out of the PLA A/c to the extent of the Cenvat/VAT credit was still available in the Cenvat/VAT Register shall be added to the Cenvat/VAT set off/utilized during the year . The VAT is payable at the time of sales and not on closing stock of finished goods . Thus, the CIT(A) rejected the appeal of the assessee company on this ground and held that the addition on account of duty following the provisions of Section 145A of the Act is called for. The 21 ITA 5045/M/10 CIT(A) further held that no adjustment in the opening stock is to be made relying on the decision of Melmould Corporation v. CIT(supra) and the impugned assessment year being assessment year 2007-08 cannot be said to be transitional year as the provisions of Section 145A of the Act has come into force w.e.f. 01.04.1998 and hence the judgment of Mahavir Aluminium Limited 297 ITR 77(Del.) is not applicable. Thus, the CIT(A) directed the AO to verify the facts and figures and make additions as per directions.
15. Aggrieved by the orders of the CIT(A) , the assessee company is in appeal before the Tribunal. The Ld. Counsel of the assessee company reiterated submissions as made before the authorities below and submitted before us that the assessee company is following 'exclusive method' also called 'net method' of accounting whereby cost of purchases are accounted for without taking into effect excise duty and VAT paid on raw material as the assessee company is entitled for credit under value added tax scheme of Government whereby set off is allowed of these duties and taxes on inputs against the excise duty/VAT payable on finished goods. The Ld. Counsel submitted that if adjustment on account of excise duty/sales tax(VAT) is required to be made in closing stock, then corresponding adjustment is to made to opening stock, purchases and sales . The Ld. Counsel of the assessee company relied upon the decision 22 ITA 5045/M/10 of Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT v. Indo Nippon Chemicals Co. Ltd. in (2003) 261 ITR 275(SC) to support its contentions while the ld. DR relied upon the orders of the authorities below.
16. We have heard both the parties and perused the material on record including case laws relied upon by the both the parties. We have observed that the whole controversy revolves around the method of accounting employed by the assessee company and valuation of purchases, sales and inventories as the assessee company is following 'exclusive method' also called as 'net method' of accounting consistently whereby purchases are reduced at inception by the cenvat credit available and are accounted for in the books of accounts by the assessee company exclusive of cenvat credit available and consequentially the assessee company has valued stock net of cenvat without including taxes, duties , cess, fee etc as provided u/s 145A of the Act while the authorities below have held that the closing inventories as on year end shall include taxes, duties, fee, cess as provided u/s 145A of the Act and no adjustment in the opening stock is called for .
Before we proceed further it is important to understand the entire background to understand the dispute in the present appeal in the right perspective.
23 ITA 5045/M/10 Firstly, we refer to the provisions of Section 145A of the Act as applicable for assessment year 2007-08 are reproduced below:
"Section - 145A, Income-tax Act, 1961 - 2006 2[Method of accounting in certain cases.
145A. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in section 145, the valuation of purchase and sale of goods and inventory for the purposes of determining the income chargeable under the head "Profits and gains of business or profession" shall be--
(a) in accordance with the method of accounting regularly employed by the assessee; and
(b) further adjusted to include the amount of any tax, duty, cess or fee (by whatever name called) actually paid or incurred by the assessee to bring the goods to the place of its location and condition as on the date of valuation.
Explanation.-- For the purposes of this section, any tax, duty, cess or fee (by whatever name called) under any law for the time being in force, shall include all such payment notwithstanding any right arising as a consequence to such payment.]"
The Section 145A of the Act was introduced by the Finance Act(No. 2) Act,1998 w.e.f. April 1,1999 and starts with a non-obstante clause that
24 ITA 5045/M/10 notwithstanding anything contained in Section 145 of Act , the valuation of purchase and sales of goods and inventory for the purposes of determining the income chargeable under the head "Profits and gains of business or profession" shall be in accordance with the method of accountancy regularly employed by the taxpayer and shall be further adjusted to include the amount of any tax, duty , cess or fee (by whatever name called) actually paid or incurred by the taxpayer to bring the goods to the place of its location and condition as on the date of valuation. The explanation to Section 145A of the Act stipulates that for the purposes of this section, any tax , duty , cess or fee under any law in force shall include all payment notwithstanding any right arising as a consequence to such payment.
It is important to understand the structure of various taxes, duties , cess and fees which have bearing on bringing the goods to the place of its location and conditions as on the date of valuation. There are broadly two categories of taxes, duties , cess and fees based on chargeability prevalent in India having bearing on bringing the goods to the place of its location and conditions as on the date of valuation of the goods as under:
25 ITA 5045/M/10
1. First category of the taxes, duties , cess and fees having bearing on bringing the goods to the place of its location and conditions as on the date of valuation of the goods are those which are to be absorbed by the enterprise as part of the component of its costs as per prevailing relevant laws,rules and regulations , without any benefit granted by law of adjusting these taxes, duties , cess and fees against the final excise duty payable on the finished goods manufactured by the enterprise. For example , Custom duty payable on import of raw materials broadly has three elements of duties apart from education and secondary education cess viz. (a) Basic Custom Duty (b) Counter veiling Duty (CVD) (c) Special Additional duties(SAD). The basic custom duty paid on import of raw materials for manufacture of finished goods is not allowed as a credit of taxes to be set off against the excise duty payable on the finished goods manufactured by the enterprises under the current value added tax regime known as cenvat credit scheme and hence is to be absorbed as cost component by the enterprise while in the case of the CVD & SAD component in custom duty paid by the enterprise on import of raw materials for manufacture of finished goods, the same are allowed as cenvat credit to be set off/ utilized for payment of excise duty on the finished goods. Similarly, Central Sales Tax(CST) paid on purchase of raw material from another state , no offset is allowed against the State VAT or CST on finished goods sold by the enterprise 26 ITA 5045/M/10 as per current schemes pertaining to sales tax and hence is to be absorbed as part of component of cost by the enterprise while State VAT paid on purchase of raw material from supplier within the State is allowed to be set-off against the VAT/CST payable on sale of finished goods to avoid cascading effect of taxes.
2. The second categories of taxes, duties , cess and fees having bearing on bringing the goods to the place of its location and conditions as on the date of valuation of the goods are known as 'Value Added Taxes'-These Value added taxes were introduced in India in 1986 to avoid cascading effect of taxes with an objective to reduce transaction cost and bring transparency in the system . The scheme allowed setting off of duties paid on procurements of inputs against the duty payable on finished goods manufactured by the enterprise thereby restricting the levy of tax to value addition done by the enterprise in manufacturing the finished goods. The scheme when launched in 1986 was called Modified Value Added tax scheme (popularly known as MODVAT scheme) which allowed credit/set off of duties paid on specified inputs used in manufacture of excisable goods against the excise duty liability of the enterprise on manufacture of goods as per provisions of Excise Laws , rules and regulations. The scheme was expanded and credit of duty paid on capital goods was also brought under the ambit of the scheme 27 ITA 5045/M/10 MODVAT in the year 1994. The scheme was later renamed CENVAT Credit scheme in the year 2000. The 'Service Tax' was introduced in India from the year 1994 and Service Tax Credit Rules, 2002 were introduced in the year 2002 to allow credit on input services used in providing taxable output services. In the year 2004, CENVAT Credit Rules, 2002 and Service Tax Credit Rules, 2002 were unified and new CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 were introduced. The new CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 allowed both manufacturers and service providers to take input credit on goods and services apart from capital goods allowing cross sectorial availment and utilization of credit. The Cenvat Credit Rules permit adjustment of excise duties paid on inputs , CVD/SAD on imports of raw material , excise duties on capital goods and service tax on input services against the excise duty payable on finished goods manufactured by the enterprise without one to one co-relation required by the enterprise to establish before availing the cenvat credit. The Central Government has now announced its intention to introduce unified Goods and Service Tax , popularly known as 'GST' which is likely to be rolled out shortly which is likely to further unify and merge various indirect taxes both Central and State levies into an unified tax to be known as 'GST' and allow credit of various indirect taxes across goods and services both Central and State levies as per scheme to be notified which will further help in cutting down transaction costs and 28 ITA 5045/M/10 bring in transparency into the system. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Eicher Motors v. UOI, 1999(106) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.) has observed that credit once validly taken by the manufacturer cannot be effaced. The relevant extract of decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court is as under:-
"5. Rule 57-F(4-A) was introduced into the Rules pursuant to the Budget for 1995-96 providing for lapsing of credit lying unutilised on 16-3-1995 with a manufacturer of tractors falling under Heading No. 87.01 or motor vehicles falling under Heading Nos. 87.02 and 87.04 or chassis of such motor vehicles under Heading No. 87.06. However, credit taken on inputs which were lying in the factory on 16-3-1995 either as parts or contained in finished products lying in stock on 16-3-1995 was allowed. Prior to the 1995-96 Budget, the Central excise/additional duty of customs paid on inputs was allowed as credit for payment of excise duty on the final products, in the manufacture of which such inputs were used. The condition required for the same was that the credit of duty paid on inputs could have been used for discharge of duty/liability only in respect of those final products in the manufacture of which such inputs were used. Thus it was claimed that there was a nexus between the inputs and the final products.
In the 1995-96 Budget, the MODVAT Scheme was
29 ITA 5045/M/10
liberalised/simplified and the credit earned on any input was allowed to be utilised for payment of duty on any final product manufactured within the same factory irrespective of whether such inputs were used in its manufacture or not. The experience showed that credit accrued on inputs is less than the duty liable to be paid on the final products and thus the credit of duty earned on inputs gets fully utilised and some amount has to be paid by the manufactured by way of cash. Prior to the 1995- 96 Budget, the excise duty on inputs used in the manufacture of tractors and commercial vehicles varied from 15% to 25%, whereas the final products attracted excise duty of 10% or 15% only. The value addition was also not of such a magnitude that the excise duty required to be paid on final products could have exceeded the total input credit allowed. Since the excess credit could not have been utilised for payment of the excise duty on any other product, the unutilised credit was getting accumulated. The stand of the assessees is that they have utilised the facility of paying excise duty on the inputs and carried the credit towards excise duty payable on the finished products. For the purpose of utilisation of the credit, all vestitive (sic) facts or necessary incidents thereto have taken place prior to 16-3-1995 or utilisation of the finished products prior 16-3-1995. Thus the assessees became entitled 30 ITA 5045/M/10 to take the credit of the input instantaneously once the input is received in the factory on the basis of the existing Scheme. Now by application of Rule 57- F(4-A), the credit attributable to inputs already used in the manufacture of the final products and the final products which have already been cleared from the factory alone is sought to be lapsed, that is, the amount that is sought to be lapsed relates to the inputs already used in the manufacture of the final products but the final products have already been cleared from the factory before 16-3-1995. Thus the right to the credit has become absolute at any rate when the input is used in the manufacture of the final product. The basic postulate that the Scheme is merely being altered and, therefore, does not have any retrospective or retroactive effect, submitted on behalf of the State, does not appeal to us. As pointed out by us that when on the strength of the Rules available, certain acts have been done by the parties concerned, incidents following thereto must take place in accordance with the Scheme under which the duty had been paid on the manufactured products and if such a situation is sought to be altered, necessarily it follows that the right, which had accrued to a party such as the availability of a scheme, is affected and, in particular, it loses sight of the 31 ITA 5045/M/10 fact that the provision for facility of credit is as good as tax paid till tax is adjusted on future goods on the basis of the several commitments which would have been made by the assesses concerned. Therefore, the Scheme sought to be introduced cannot be made applicable to the goods which had already come into existence in respect of which the earlier Scheme was applied under which the assessees had availed of the credit facility for payment of taxes. It is on the basis of the earlier Scheme necessarily that the taxes have to be adjusted and payment made complete. Any manner or mode of application of the said Rule would result in affecting the rights of the assesses.
6. We may look at the matter from another angle. If on the inputs, the assessee had already paid the taxes on the basis that when the goods are utilised in the manufacture of further products as inputs thereto then the tax on these goods gets adjusted which are finished subsequently. Thus a right accrued to the assessee on the date when they paid the tax on the raw materials or the inputs and that right would continue until the facility available thereto gets worked out or until those goods existed. Therefore, it becomes clear that Section 37 of the Act does not enable the authorities concerned to make a rule which is impugned herein and, therefore, 32 ITA 5045/M/10 we may have no hesitation to hold that the Rule cannot be applied to the goods manufactured prior to 16-3-1995 on which duty had been paid and credit facility thereto has been availed of for the purpose of manufacture of further goods
7. There are several decisions referred to by the learned counsel on either side but we do not think that those decisions have any relevance to the point under discussion
8. We allow the petitions filed by the assessees and declare that the said Rule cannot be applied except in the manner indicated by us above. No orders as to costs"
Thus in nut-shell , it can be said that the cenvatable duties and taxes paid on procurement of inputs and services which are used in or in relation to manufacture of finished goods are allowed to be set off against the liability of excise duty determined on the finished goods manufactured by the enterprise and Hon'ble Apex Court has already held that cenvat credit once validly taken cannot be effaced. Thus , it can be said that Cenvat credit once validly taken creates an accrued right in favour of the enterprise to get it adjusted against the excise duty payable on the finished goods manufactured by the enterprise , which is well known to the enterprise in advance ab-initio at the stage of procuring inputs and services itself that these taxes on inputs and services on procurement paid by the enterprise shall be set off against 33 ITA 5045/M/10 the liability for excise duty payable on finished goods manufactured by the enterprises to avoid cascading effect of multiple taxes at multiple stages. The Cenvat Credit Rules also permit refund of taxes and duties on inputs and services used in case of export of goods on fulfillment of stipulated conditions as stipulated under excise laws, rules and regulations.
The Accounting Standard AS-2 issued by the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India(ICAI) which is a mandatory standard stipulates that the Cost of Inventories should comprise all costs of purchase, costs of conversion and other costs incurred in bringing the inventories to their present location and condition. The costs of purchase is defined in the AS-2 which consists of the purchase price including duties and taxes (other than those subsequently recoverable by the enterprise from the taxing authorities), freight inwards and other expenditure directly attributable to the acquisition. Thus AS-2 which is a mandatory standard requires that duties and taxes paid on purchase are to form part of cost of purchases but other than those duties and taxes subsequently recoverable by the enterprise from the taxing authorities meaning thereby that the cenvat credit of duties and taxes paid on inputs which is recoverable from the revenue authorities by way of set off against the excise duty payable on finished goods 34 ITA 5045/M/10 manufactured by the enterprise shall not form part of the cost of purchase of the inventories in bringing the same to their present location and condition. Thus, the ICAI stipulated enterprises to follow 'exclusive method' also called as 'net method' of accounting ( which in the instant case , the assessee company is also following) whereby the taxes and duties paid which are recoverable from revenue authorities shall not be included in the cost of purchases and in valuing inventories . On the other hand Section 145A of the Act requires following the 'inclusive method' also called as 'gross method' of accounting whereby it requires the valuation of purchase, sale and inventory to be further adjusted to include the amount of any tax, duty, cess or fee actually paid or incurred by the taxpayer to bring the goods to the place of its location and condition as on the date of valuation notwithstanding any right arising as a consequence to such payment of taxes, duties, cess or fee. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Indo Nippon Chemicals Co. Limited in (2003) 261 ITR 275(SC) has observed that under both the methods viz 'gross method' or 'net method' as discussed above, the trading results shall be same by observing as under:
" The High Court has taken the several illustrations in the charts placed before it by both sides and demonstrated that there are two
35 ITA 5045/M/10 possible methods of valuation of stock. The first would be the "gross method" , in which the stock is valued at cost price inclusive of the excise duty element . If this method is adopted , then the unconsumed stock also must necessarily be valued in the same manner. The other method is the "net method" , in which the raw material purchased is valued at the actual cost,that is the actual purchase price and , on this, Modvat credit would be available. If this method is to be adopted, then uniformly the same method must be adopted while valuing the unconsumed stock at the end of the year. Whichever method one adopts, the result would be the same."
Similarly , ICAI has also in the guidance note on tax audit u/s 44AB of the Income Tax Act,1961 at para 23.23 has demonstrated with practical examples that under both the methods i.e. 'inclusive method' also called as 'gross method' or 'exclusive method' also called as 'net method', the gross profits in trading account shall be the same . It is difficult to believe that the enterprise will make profits on taxes, duties , cess and fee payable to Government in the midst of prevailing law's concerning and with reference to doctrine of unjust enrichment. The relevant extracts from the Guidance note on Tax Audit u/s 44AB of the Income Tax Act,1961 issued by ICAI are reproduced below:
36 ITA 5045/M/10 "23.11 It may be pointed out that the "inclusive method" is not permitted by AS-2 which is made mandatory from accounting year beginning on or after 01.04.1999. Further, in the Guidance Note on Accounting for CENVAT the second method (inclusive method) has been withdrawn with effect from accounting year commencing from 1.4.1999. In view of the above, the adjustments under section 145A will have to be made in all cases where 'exclusive method' is followed.
23.12 In this connection, it is worthwhile to note that the Memorandum explaining the provisions of section 145A inserted by the Finance (No.2) Bill, 1998 states as follows: "Computation of value of inventory. The issue relating to whether the value of closing stock of the inputs, work-in-progress and finished goods must necessarily include the element for which MODVAT* credit is available has been the matter of considerable litigation. In order to ensure that the value of opening and closing stock (bold for emphasis) reflect the correct value, it is proposed to insert a new section to clarify that while computing the value of the inventory as per the method of accounting regularly employed by the assessee, the same shall include the amount of any tax, duty, cess or fees paid or liability incurred for the same under any law in force. The 37 ITA 5045/M/10 proposed amendment which is clarificatory in nature shall take effect retrospectively from the 1st day of April, 1986 and will accordingly apply in relation to assessment year 1986-87 and subsequent years. [Clause 45]"
*Now CENVAT. (Section 145A was initially proposed to be applicable in relation to assessment year 1986-87 and subsequent years. However, later on, when the Finance (No.2) Bill, 1998 was enacted into law the provision was made applicable from 1.4.1999 i.e. assessment year 1999-2000) 23.13 It may be noted that when the adjustments are made in the valuation of inventories, this will affect both the opening as well as closing stock. Whatever adjustment is made in the valuation of closing stock, the same will be reflected in the opening stock also. Question for consideration is whether the opening stock as on 1.4.1998 should be adjusted as required under section 145A. It is now well settled that if any adjustment is required to be made by a statute, effect to the same should be given irrespective of any consequences on the computation of income for tax purposes. Section 145A starts with the non obstante clause "Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in section 145". Therefore, to give effect to section 145A, the opening stock as on 1.4.98 will have to be increased by any tax, duty, cess or fee actually paid or incurred with reference to
38 ITA 5045/M/10 such stock if the same has not been added for the purpose of valuation in the accounts. 23.14 It may be noted that while making the adjustments stated in Para 23.8 and 23.13 above, the tax auditor should ensure that if any deduction is claimed for any tax, duty, cess or fee on the items covered by these two paragraphs by way of debit in the profit and loss account, either in the earlier year or in the year under report, adjustment for the same should be made in such a manner that no double deduction is claimed for the same expenditure. Similarly, adjustment should be made for any item of income to ensure that the same item is not treated as income twice.
.....
......
23.22 Section 145A of the Income-tax Act provides that the valuation of purchase and sales of goods and inventory for the purpose of computation of income from business or profession shall be made on the basis of method of accounting regularly employed by the assessee but this shall be subject to certain adjustments. Therefore, it is not necessary to change the method of valuation of purchase, sale and inventory regularly employed in the books of account. The adjustment provided for in this section should be made while computing the income for the purpose of preparing the 39 ITA 5045/M/10 return of income. Therefore, the recommended method for accounting of VAT will not result in non-compliance of section 145A of the Income-tax Act.
23.23 The adjustments envisaged by section 145A will not have any impact on the trading account of the assessee. In other words both under exclusive method of accounting and inclusive method of accounting, the gross profit in the trading account will remain the same."
The present regime of value added taxation has progressed way ahead now as compared to the year 1998 when Section 145A of the Act was introduced whereby now the Cenvat Credit Scheme is allowing across the board credit of various taxes, duties, cess, fee as per applicable laws, rules and regulation like excise duty on inputs, CVD/SAD on import of inputs, service tax on services utilized for manufacturing of finished goods, excise duty on capital goods etc. paid to be set off against liability of excise duty on finished goods manufactured by the enterprise without any one to one co-relation which is likely to be further revolutionized with the introduction of 'GST' shortly with an intent and purpose of eliminating cascading effect of taxes levied at multiple stages to reduce transaction cost and bring in transparency 40 ITA 5045/M/10 into the system and Apex Court has already held in the case of Eicher Motors (supra) that cenvat credit once validly taken cannot be effaced and creates an accrued right in favour of enterprise, it becomes apparent that 'exclusive method' also called as 'net method' appears certainly to be better choice in the present scenario vis-à-vis 'inclusive method' also called 'gross method' of accounting for maintaining books of accounts for accounting for cost of purchases which is also stipulated by ICAI because these cenvatable duties and taxes on procurement of goods and services paid by the enterprise are payments made by the enterprise with an attached and accrued right in favour of the enterprise that these cenvatable taxes so paid on raw materials, input services once validly taken cannot be effaced and shall be paid back to the enterprise by the Government by way of set off against the excise duty liability on finished goods manufactured by the enterprise and these 'cenvat credit' is more akin to 'current assets' rather than part of the cost of purchases and inventory being taxes recoverable from Government by way of adjustment against the excise duty payable on finished goods manufactured by the enterprise , more-so the result by the both the methods of accounting viz. 'gross method' or 'net method' will be same as observed by Apex Court in the judgment of Indo Nippon Chemicals Co. Ltd.(supra) and also demonstrated by ICAI in its guidance note as detailed above. The ICAI in view of divergence 41 ITA 5045/M/10 between AS-2 and mandatory requirements of Section 145A of the Act has stipulated in the guidance note on tax audit at para 23.22 that books of accounts are to be maintained by the enterprise following 'exclusive method' also called as 'net method' , while due to mandatory requirement of Section 145A of the Act while preparing return of income to be filed with Revenue , it is stipulated by ICAI to follow 'inclusive method' also called as 'gross method but the gross profits under both the methods will yield same profits which in any case will not cause any prejudice to the Revenue. The provisions of Section 43B of the Act also protect the interest of Revenue that the taxes, duties , fee and cess payable as at the year end by the taxpayer shall only be allowed as deduction from the income under the Act if the same are actually paid to the credit of Government before the due date of filing of return of income as stipulated u/s 139(1) of the Act. The Excise laws , rules and regulation also requires the records to be maintained in an prescribed manner whereby cenvat credit availed and utilized can be clearly demarcated to establish that correct cenvat credit is availed and utilized by the Enterprise. The Income Tax Act,1961 cannot work in vaccum in isolation but has to progress along-with the rapid development taking place in the economy as it is a living Act and harmonization of various laws is the need of the hour to reduce complexities and bring in the ease of doing business, of course , 42 ITA 5045/M/10 without compromising / sacrificing with the basic intent and mandate of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to collect correct taxes as per provisions of the Act. During the last few decades, things have radically and drastically changed in the economy the way businesses are conducted as now e-commerce and international transactions have taken primacy in the economy which are now the key areas of challenge under the Income Tax Laws. It is for the Parliament to frame and amend laws to keep pace with the fast changing environment in the economy. We have seen above that Section 145A of the Act was brought into statute in 1998 when MODVAT scheme was prevalent which allowed credit / set off on specified inputs used in manufacture of excisable goods apart from capital goods but now with Cenvat Scheme in operation which allows both manufacturers and service providers to take input credits on goods and services apart from capital goods across cross sectors without any one to one correlation and the Apex Court already holding in Eicher Motor(supra) that cenvat credit once validly taken cannot be effaced and creates an accrued right in favour of the enterprise,there is a need to align Section 145A of the Act with the present regime of indirect taxation which Parliament alone in its wisdom can do to keep pace with the developments taking place in economy.
43 ITA 5045/M/10 As far as the first category of taxes, fees, duties, cess having bearing on bringing the goods to the place of its location and conditions as on the date of valuation of the goods discussed in the preceding para's above are concerned which are paid on raw materials and also during WIP stage on which no cenvat credit is allowed by the law under cenvat scheme and are absorbed in the Profit and Loss Account by the enterprise as one of the components and item of the cost, we are of the considered opinion that such taxes, duties, fees, cess (by whatever name called) having bearing on bringing the goods to the place of its location and conditions as on the date of valuation of the goods has to be included in the cost of purchase and valuation of the goods irrespective of whether the enterprise is following 'exclusive method' or 'inclusive method' of accounting to satisfy the mandatory requirement of Section 145A of the Act . Similarly , for valuation of finished goods manufactured by the enterprises , the excise duty on finished goods manufactured by the enterprises is to be added to value of finished goods as the excise duty on finished goods is actually paid or incurred by the taxpayer to bring the goods to the place of its location and conditions as on the date of valuation irrespective of whether the enterprise is following 'exclusive method' or 'inclusive method' of accounting.
44 ITA 5045/M/10 As per Section 145A of the Act as it exists in the statute, the assessee company has to mandatorily prepare its accounts as per 'inclusive method' or 'gross method' to compute profit chargeable to tax in accordance with Section 145A of the Act while filing return of income with the Revenue . Thus as per Section 145A of the Act as it exists in the statute, we hold that the assessee company has to compulsorily value the purchase and sale of goods and inventory for the purposes of determining the income chargeable to tax under the head 'profit and gains of business or profession' in accordance with the method of accounting regularly employed and further adjusted to include taxes, duties, cess or fee(by whatever name called) under any law for the time being in force, actually paid or incurred to bring the goods to the place of its location and condition as on the date of valuation notwithstanding any right arising as a consequence to such payment.This is the mandate of Section 145A of the Act which we hold is mandatory. At this stage we are reminded of the decision of the Privy Council, in the case of CIT v. Ahmedabad New Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. AIR 1930 PC 56 that while considering the effect of altering the method of valuation, Privy Council held that whenever there is a change in the valuation at one end (on 31-3-2007 in the instant case), then there must necessarily be a corresponding change at the other end (on 1-4-2006 as in the 45 ITA 5045/M/10 instant case) otherwise, the true profit would not be reflected. This view of Privy Council is further fortified and supported by the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Dynavision Ltd. in (2012) 26 taxmann.com 40 (SC). The reliance of the Revenue on the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Melmould Corporation v. CIT in 202 ITR 789 (Bom) is devoid of merits as in the said case the taxpayer was regularly following method of valuation of inventory at cost plus overhead and then during the impugned assessment year, the taxpayer chose to change method of valuation of closing inventory at cost whereby overheads were not included in the valuation of inventory and then in the context and light of change of method of valuation of inventory by the taxpayer itself , the Hon'ble Bombay High Court held that there is no change called for in the opening stock while changing the method of valuation of closing stock at cost excluding overhead as otherwise it will lead to chain reaction as in the earlier years also the values of inventory will be changed . However, in the instant case , the assessee company is consistently and regularly following the method of accounting by following 'exclusive method' also called 'net method' which is one of the accepted method of accountancy whereby the taxes paid on purchase of raw material are not included in the cost of purchase on the premise that the assessee company is entitled for Cenvat credit on the same to be adjusted against the excise duty 46 ITA 5045/M/10 liability on finished goods manufactured by the assessee company , while the basic fallacy in contention of the Revenue is that the Revenue is contemplating adding the excise duty paid to the value of closing inventory following the 'inclusive method' also called as 'gross method' and not to the totality of all relevant transactions during the previous year to arrive at a correct income chargeable to tax as per the Act and hence , in our considered view, , the 'inclusive method' also called as 'gross method' as mandated by Section 145A of the Act, is to be applied to the totality of all relevant transactions during the previous year to arrive at a correct income chargeable to tax as per the Act and the same cannot be applied in a piecemeal and ad-hoc manner to a few handful chosen and selected transactions as is done by the revenue in the instant case which will lead to distortion of income chargeable to tax which is not permissible under the Act.
Our above observations and discussions in preceding para's are equally applicable to VAT/sales tax on the raw materials, WIP and finished goods.
In our considered view , the interest of justice will be best served , if the matter is restored to the file of the AO to re-determine the correct income chargeable to tax as per the Act after considering the provisions of Section 145A of the Act in light of our observations as contained in the preceding para's. Needless to say that proper and adequate 47 ITA 5045/M/10 opportunity will be given to the assessee company by the AO in accordance with the principles of natural justice as enshrined in doctrine of audi alteram partem in accordance with law and the assessee company will be allowed to produce necessary evidence in support of its defense. We order accordingly.
17. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee company is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 9th December, 2015. आदे श क घोषणा खुले #यायालय म% &दनांकः 09-12-2015 को क गई ।
Sd/-
sd/-
(AMIT SHUKLA) (RAMIT KOCHAR)
JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
मुंबई Mumbai; &दनांक Dated 09-12-2015
[
व.9न.स./ R.K., Ex. Sr. PS
आदे श क! " त$ल%प अ&े%षत/Copy of the Order forwarded to :
1. अपीलाथ / The Appellant
2. यथ / The Respondent.
3. आयकर आयु:त(अपील) / The CIT(A)- concerned, Mumbai
4. आयकर आय:
ु त / CIT- Concerned, Mumbai
5. =वभागीय 9त9न?ध, आयकर अपील य अ?धकरण, मुंबई / DR, ITAT, Mumbai H Bench
6. गाडC फाईल / Guard file.
आदे शानुसार/ BY ORDER, स या=पत 9त //True Copy// उप/सहायक पंजीकार (Dy./Asstt. Registrar) आयकर अपील य अ धकरण, मुंबई / ITAT, Mumbai FIT FOR PUBLICATION JM AM