Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

5. When the matter was called for hearing, the learned AR for the assessee in Revenue's appeal submitted at the outset that controversy as per the ground no.1 of the Revenue's appeal revolves around applicability of Section 145A of the Act towards alleged under valuation of closing stock. The learned AR submitted that the assessee has followed exclusive method of accounting and therefore, the closing stock has not been loaded with the taxes and dues as contemplated under s.145A of the Act. The learned AR submitted that in view of the exclusive method of accounting consistently followed, the action of the assessee is revenue neutral. The learned AR submitted that the exclusive method of accounting postulates exclusion of tax, dues etc. embedded in purchases of raw material as well as in corresponding sale. Such taxes are accounted for separatel y for the purposes of discharging liabilities. The effect of such accounting does not ultimately have any impact on the ultimate I T A N o . 7 7 5 / Ah d / 1 4 & 9 O r s . [ Ad a n i Ga s L t d . ] A. Y . 2 0 0 9 - 1 0 t o 2 0 1 3 - 1 4 - 4 -

6. The learned DR for the Revenue, on the other hand, relied upon the order of the AO.

7. We have carefully considered the rival submissions on the issue towards applicability of Section 145A of the Act as well as perused the order of the lower authorities. While it is a case of the Revenue that the element of excise duty/CENVAT etc. would represent part of the closing stock of the assessee in terms of Section 145A of the Act, it is the case of the assessee on the other hand that Section 145A of the Act has no application to the facts of the case. It is further case of the assessee that assessee follows exclusive method of accounting for valuation of inventory and therefore, entire exercise would be tax I T A N o . 7 7 5 / Ah d / 1 4 & 9 O r s . [ Ad a n i Ga s L t d . ] A. Y . 2 0 0 9 - 1 0 t o 2 0 1 3 - 1 4 - 5 -

"1. The CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition made of Rs.2,66,56,242/- on account of unutilized CENVAT credit u/s.145A of the Act.
2. The CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the disallowance of Rs.38,30,834/- being amortization of lease charges.

34. Ground No.1 concerns addition of Rs.2,66,56,242/- on account of unutilized CENVAT credit under s.145A of the Act. There being no change in the facts pointed out on behalf of the Revenue, the addition made under s.145A is not sustainable in view of the exclusive method of accounting followed by the assessee resulting in tax neutrality as held in appeal concerning AY 2009-10 as per para nos. 4- 8 of this order. We, thus, decline to interfere with the order of the CIT(A).

60. Ground No.3 concerns enhancement of closing stock under s.145A of the Act towards unutilized CENVAT credit and consequent increase in the assessed income to this extent. The issue has been deliberated in length in ITA No.775/Ahd/2014 relevant to AY 2009-10 as per para nos. 4-8 of this order. Thus, we are of the view that CIT(A) has appreciated the facts in perspective and deleted the addition made under s.145A of the Act in the facts and circumstances of the case. Thus, we decline to interfere with the order of the CIT(A).