TMI Blog2015 (6) TMI 357X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ally irrelevant whether the same was claimed to be expenditure in the profit and loss account by the assessee. As per provisions of section 43B of the Act, the expenditure on account of excise duty can only be allowed if it is paid before the due date of filing of the return of income. Therefore, we find no force in the arguments of the ld. counsel for the assessee that this amount of excise duty cannot be included in the valuation of closing stock, as it was not claimed as expenditure in the impugned assessment year. Therefore, we are of the view that the Assessing Officer has correctly included the excise duty in the valuation of closing stock - Decided against assesse. - ITA No.693/lkw/2013 - - - Dated:- 11-3-2015 - Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav And shri. A. K. Garodia JJ For the Appellant : Dr. Anant Kumar Agrawal, CIT (DR) For the Respondent : Shri. Shyam Lal, C.A. ORDER Per Sunil Kumar YADAV: This appeal is preferred by the Revenue against the order of the ld. CIT(A), inter alia, on the following grounds:- 1. That the order of the Ld. CIT (Appeals) Bareilly is erroneous in law and on facts as the A.O. has rightly disallowed ₹ 59,60,316/- as em ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to prove that the payments of Provident Fund were made before the due date of filing of the return of income. Being convinced with the explanations of the assessee, the ld. CIT(A) has deleted the addition. The relevant observations of the ld. CIT(A) are extracted hereunder for the sake of reference:- I have considered the issue, It is seen from the order of the AO that the AO has made the basis of disallowance, Annexure E and El of the Audit report. The copy of this report as filed in appeal before me shows that that the mode of payment was shown as draft/ cheques. All the draft and cheques are issued well before the due date for filing the return of income. The return in question was filed on 19.9.2008 as mentioned in Annexure E and E-1 shows that the payments mentioned in Annexure E were paid through draft and the last draft is dated 20.04.2008. Similarly as per annexure last cheque is dated 20.04.2008. The provisions of section 43 B clearly mandate that nothing contained in this section shall apply in relation to any sum which is actually paid by the assessee on or before the due date applicable in his case for furnishing the return of income under sub-section (1) of section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the excise duty having invoked the provisions of section 145A of the Act, according to which while valuing the 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 , the amount of any tax, duty, cess or fee (by whatever name called) actually paid or incurred by the assessee is to be included. The Assessing Officer further observed that since excise duty has been incurred on the manufacturing of the goods, the same should have been included in the closing stock as per provisions of section 145A(a) of the Act. 6. The assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) with the submission that the assessee has not claimed any expenditure on account of payment of excise duty, therefore, the same cannot be included in the valuation of closing stock. The ld. CIT(A) re-examined the claim of the assessee in the light of his contentions and has finally deleted the addition in the light of the judgments of the Hon'ble Madras High Court reported in 267 ITR 600 and 243 ITR 502 and the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Chainrup Sampatram, 24 ITR 481(SC) and Hindust ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... isions of the Act in the light of the rival submissions, we find that in those cases referred to by the assessee scope of provisions of section 145A of the Act was not examined by the Hon'ble High Court or the Tribunal. 10. In the case of CIT vs. Dynavision Ltd. (supra), the relevant assessment year is 1987-88 whereas the provisions of section 145A of the Act was introduced w.e.f. 1.4.1999. Therefore, there was no occasion for the Hon'ble Supreme Court to examine the scope of section 145A of the Act. Similar is the position in the case of CIT vs. Torrent Cables Ltd. (supra) where the assessment year involved is 1995-96. In the aforesaid orders of the Tribunal, though the assessment year involved was after introduction of the provisions of section 145A of the Act, but the scope of section 145A of the Act was never examined by the Tribunal. Therefore, no assistance can be drawn in favour of the assessee from the aforesaid judgments/orders referred to by the assessee. As per provisions of section 145A of the Act, 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 co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
