9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (2) TMI 39X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made u/s.145A of the Act by the A.O.". 2. "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding in not applying principles laid down by the Hon'ble ITAT in the case of M/s. Hawkins Cooker Ltd. and not considering the guidelines of ICAI that the adjustment made u/s.145A in cases where exclusive method is followed will be revenue neutral". 3(i) "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance of Rs.l0,00,00,000/- made by the A.O. on account of customs duty expense." 3(ii) "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in admitting and not remanding the add ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... covered in favour of assessee. The ld. AR of the assessee further argued that all the details and evidence including challans were submitted before the AO as well. 4. We have considered the rival contentions of the parties and gone through the orders of authorities below. First and the Second Ground of appeal relates to deleting the addition made u/s 145A of the Act. We have seen that the Co-ordinate bench of this Tribunal in M/s Classic Marble Co. Ltd. vs. DCIT in ITA No. 1845/Mum/2014 dated 21.09.2016 relating to AY 2009-10 considered the almost identical issue and made the following order: "10. Rival contentions have been heard and record perused. We have also deliberated on the judicial pronouncements referred by AO and CIT(A) in his ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s and figures of the assessee, came to the conclusion it that formula laid down in the case of Hawkins Cooker Ltd., is not applicable to the facts of this case. The CIT(A) also taken into consideration increase in case of opening stock on inclusion of excise duty on which MODVAT credit is available/availed and also increase in purchase of raw materials, increase in sales of finished goods on inclusion of excise duty. The excise duty paid on sale of finished goods, as a result of inclusion in sales, were also taken into account. After giving detailed finding at para 3.3 to 3.12, the CIT(A) deleted the addition. The detailed finding recorded by CIT(A) after observing that assessee has been consistently following the same method of adjustment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ductible only in the year in which it "is actually paid, i.e., for the assessment year 1987-88, irrespective of the year in which the assessee incurred the liability on the basis" of the" method of accounting regularly adopted by him and, therefore, in view of the clear provisions of law, the deduction cannot be allowed in the assessment year 1988-89. In our view, both the learned Income-tax Appellate Tribunal as well as the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) fell in error in holding that since the assessee-firm debited the cost of goods imported including the duty, paid on delivery of goods in the trading account in April, 1987, and before the actual delivery of the goods, the value of the goods and customs duty paid thereon was shown in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
