Latest Expert Exchange Queries
sitemapHome | Registration | Job Portal for CA's | Expert Exchange | Currency Converter | Post Matrimonial Ads | Post Property Ads
 
 
News shortcuts: From the Courts | News Headlines | VAT (Value Added Tax) | Service Tax | Sales Tax | Placements & Empanelment | Various Acts & Rules | Latest Circulars | New Forms | Forex | Auditing | Direct Tax | Customs and Excise | ICAI | Corporate Law | Markets | Students | General | Indirect Tax | Mergers and Acquisitions | Continuing Prof. Edu. | Budget Extravaganza | Transfer Pricing
 
 
 
 
Popular Search: ACCOUNTING STANDARDS :: form 3cd :: ICAI offer Get Windows 7,Office 2010 in Rs.799 Taxes :: ACCOUNTING STANDARD :: empanelment :: VAT RATES :: ARTICLES ON INPUT TAX CREDIT IN VAT :: articles on VAT and GST in India :: list of goods taxed at 4% :: Central Excise rule to resale the machines to a new company :: TAX RATES - GOODS TAXABLE @ 4% :: VAT Audit :: TDS :: cpt :: due date for vat payment
 
 
From the Courts »
  Micro Spacematrix Solution P Ltd vs. ITO (ITAT Delhi)
 Micro Spacematrix Solution P Ltd vs. ITO (ITAT Delhi)
 CIT vs. Greenfield Hotels & Estates Pvt. Ltd (Bombay High Court)
 IndiaBulls Financial Services Ltd vs. DCIT (Delhi High Court)
 Maharao Bhim Singh of Kota vs. CIT (Supreme Court)
 Ravneet Takhar Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax Ix And Ors.
 Jaiprakash Associates Ltd. Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax
 Formula One World Championship Limited Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax, International Taxation-3 And Anr.
 Commissioner Of Income Tax International Taxation-3 Delhi Vs. Formula One World Championship Ltd. And Anr.
 Reliance Communications Ltd vs. DDIT (ITAT Mumbai)
  Sushila Devi vs. CIT (Delhi High Court)

A C I T - 14(1) Room No. 202, 2nd Floor Earnest House, Nariman Point Mumbai 400021 Vs. M/s. Rajshree Industries 3C, Dr. tmaram Merchant Road, Bhuleshwar Mumbai 400002
May, 26th 2015
                  IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
                             "D" Bench, Mumbai

                    Before Shri D. Manmohan, Vice President
                   and Shri Sanjay Arora, Accountant Member

                             ITA No. 7484/Mum/2013
                             (Assessment Year: 2009-10)

     A C I T - 14(1)                       M/s. Rajshree Industries
     Room No. 202, 2nd Floor               3C, Block No. 4, Jai Hind Bldg.
     Earnest House, Nariman Point      Vs. 2nd Floor, Dr. Atmaram
     Mumbai 400021                         Merchant Road, Bhuleshwar
                                           Mumbai 400002
                                PAN - AAGFR9081E
                 Appellant                          Respondent

                      Appellant by:     Shri Sanjay Punglia
                      Respondent by:    Shri Rushabh Mehta

                      Date of Hearing:       21.05.2015
                      Date of Pronouncement: 21.05.2015

                                    ORDER

Per D. Manmohan, V.P.

      This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order passed by
CIT(A)-25, Mumbai and it pertains to A.Y. 2009-10.

2.        Following grounds were urged before the Tribunal: -

     "1.     On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the
             Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition made on account of
             unexplained investment u/s. 69 of account of difference in closing
             stock shows in the books vis-a-vis the stock statement submitted
             to the bank, in view of Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court
             judgement in the case of Devgon Rice and General Mills Vs. CIT
             263 ITR 391 (2003).
     2.      Further, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in relying on the judgement of
             Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Acrow India
             Ltd. (2008) 298 ITR (Bom.) as the facts of the case are different.
     3.      The Ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the finding the A.O. that
             the Machinery is owned by the assessee and whatever repairs
             and maintenance work has been done is for enduring benefit for
             the assessee in future and hence the same is in nature of capital
             expenditure."
                                       2                  ITA No. 7484/Mum/2013
                                                           M/s. Rajshree Industries




3.    Facts necessary for disposal of the appeal are stated in brief.
Assessee-firm is engaged in the business of manufacture of plastic articles.
It has set up its unit in the notified backward state and therefore it was
entitled to claim deduction under section 80IB(10) of the Act. For the year
under consideration assessee declared total income at `1.11 crores after
claiming deduction under section 80IB(10) of the Act. During the course of
scrutiny proceedings the AO noticed that there is difference in the figures of
stock statement submitted by the assessee with the Union Bank of India for
the month ended March, 2009 and closing stock value as declared in the
Balance Sheet and also observed that the assessee failed to reconcile the
difference in the stock value as per bank statement and its books of
account.

4.    In response thereto the assessee-firm submitted that assessee has
taken secured loans from banks against hypothecation of stock and book
debts and assessee has to submit monthly statement of stock and debtors to
the bank by 10th of the next month as per the norms of the bank. But going
by the books of account and actual stock there was no difference, since a
higher value was shown for bank purposes. AO rejected the contention of
assessee and added a sum of `24,10,667/- as unexplained investment
under section 69 of the Act, referable to the difference in stock value.

5.    Similarly, AO noticed that assessee debited a sum of `3,43,281/- on
account of repairs and maintenance of machinery. According to the AO it is
in the nature of capital expenses and therefore disallowed the claim of
deduction. AO accordingly completed the assessment on a total taxable
income of `1,38,80,160/-.

6.    Aggrieved, assessee contended before the CIT(A) that the monthly
statement submitted to the bank is based on average value of purchase
made whereas the value of closing stock in the Balance Sheet is determined
according to the method consistently and regularly followed as per
Accounting Standard-2 issued by the ICAI. It was also submitted that there
was no difference in the quantitative details as per the stock statement and
that shown in the books of account and hence the addition made by the AO
                                      3                  ITA No. 7484/Mum/2013
                                                          M/s. Rajshree Industries

under section 69 of the Act is not in accordance with law. It was further
submitted that assessee incurred certain expenditure for maintenance and
upkeep of the plant and machinery. Manufacturing process of the assessee's
product is highly machine intensive and requires various kinds of machines
and moulds in the process. Due to wear and tear of machinery assessee
incurred expenditure to the tune of `3,43,281/-, which is allowable as
revenue in nature.

7.    As regards the difference in closing stock valuation, the learned CIT(A)
observed that the AO has merely relied upon the declaration of stock
statement submitted by the assessee to the bank but had he gone deep, to
the root cause of difference, it would have been noticed that there was no
quantitative difference; further, assessee filed quantitative reconciliation of
closing stock shown in the Balance Sheet with that submitted to the bank.
He also relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the
case of Acrow India Ltd. 298 ITR 447 in support of his conclusion that
addition could not have been made by the AO on the basis of the statement
given to the bank, regarding valuation of closing stock, unless specific
material is brought on record to prove that there is undervaluation of stock.
He, thus, set aside the addition made by the AO referable to undervaluation
of stock.

8.    With regard to the issue as to whether the assessee incurred
expenditure under the head `repairs of plant and machinery' in order to
create a new asset, the learned CIT(A) observed that the expenditure was
incurred for the purpose of maintaining the machinery in its present
condition and hence such expenditure cannot be considered as capital
expenditure. In this regard he also referred to the ledger statement and
copies of the bills. He also observed, upon verification of the bills, that the
impugned expenditure consists of large number of bills of petty amount, for
various types of repairs.

9.    Aggrieved, Revenue is in appeal before us. The learned D.R. strongly
relied upon the order passed by the AO whereas the learned counsel for the
assessee relied upon the material placed before the CIT(A) and also the
                                           4                     ITA No. 7484/Mum/2013
                                                                  M/s. Rajshree Industries




decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Acrow India Ltd.
(supra) to submit that in the absence of proving that there is undervaluation
of stock AO should not make any addition by merely basing upon the
statement given to the bank. He also placed before us a paper book
consisting of 208 pages to submit that copies of the invoices regarding
repairs and maintenance were also filed and analysis of stock statement
submitted to the bank and stock as per Balance Sheet was placed before the
CIT(A)     who    has   verified   the   same    and   noticed    that   there    is   no
undervaluation of stock. Similarly the expenditure incurred would fall in the
category of repairs and maintenance.

10.      Having regard to the circumstances of the case we are of the view that
the order passed by CIT(A), on this two issues, does not call for any
interference. We therefore dismiss the appeal filed by the Revenue.

Order pronounced in the open court on 21st May, 2015.

                   Sd/-                                        Sd/-
              (Sanjay Arora)                             (D. Manmohan)
           Accountant Member                              Vice President

Mumbai, Dated: 21st May, 2015

Copy to:

   1.    The   Appellant
   2.    The   Respondent
   3.    The   CIT(A) ­ 25, Mumbai
   4.    The   CIT­ 14, Mumbai City
   5.    The   DR, "D" Bench, ITAT, Mumbai

                                                           By Order

//True Copy//
                                                       Assistant Registrar
                                               ITAT, Mumbai Benches, Mumbai
n.p.

 
 
Home | About Us | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us
Copyright 2016 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Binarysoft Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
Multimedia Presentations Multimedia Solutions 3D Solutions Corporate Presentations Business Presentations Multimedia Presentation India M

Transfer Pricing | International Taxation | Business Consulting | Corporate Compliance and Consulting | Assurance and Risk Advisory | Indirect Taxes | Direct Taxes | Transaction Advisory | Regular Compliance and Reporting | Tax Assessments | International Taxation Advisory | Capital Structuring | Withholding tax advisory | Expatriate Tax Reporting | Litigation | Badges | Club Badges | Seals | Military Insignias | Emblems | Family Crest | Software Development India | Software Development Company | SEO Company | Web Application Development | MLM Software | MLM Solutions