Appeal details
Counselvise Citation
[2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 91012 (ITAT-DELHI)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
Duration Of Justice
2 year(s) 16 day(s)
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date
08-05-2015
Appeal Filed By
Department
Order Result
Dismissed
Bench Allotted
G
Next Hearing Date
06-05-2015
Assessment Year
2008-2009
Appeal Filed On
22-04-2013
Judgement Text
ITA 2367/DEL/2013 ASSTT.YEAR: 2008-09 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH G NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S.V. MEHROTRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 2367/DEL/2013 ASSESSMENT Y EAR: 2008-09 DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VS SUZUKI MO TORCYCLE (INDIA) PVT. LTD., CIRCLE-9(1), ROOM NO. 163, VILLAGE KHERKI D HAULA, C.R. BUILDING, NEW DELHI. BADSHAHPUR, NH-8 , LINK ROAD, GURGAON-122004 (PAN: AAACI5832P) (APPELLANT) (RESPON DENT) APPELLANT BY: SHRI B.R.R. KUMAR SR. DR SHRI AJAY VOHRA, SR. ADV. RESPONDENT BY: MS DEBASHREE RAO, CA, SH. ANS HUL SACHAR, ADV. O R D E R PER CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE HAS BEEN DIRECTED AGAIN ST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A)-XII, NEW DELHI DATED 29.1.2013 IN APPEAL NO. 353/11-12 FOR AY 2008- 09. THE SOLE GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE READS AS UNDER:- 1. THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DE LETING THE ADDITION OF RS.1,05,78,032/- UNDER THE HEAD INVENT ORY WRITTEN OFF. 2. WE HAVE HEARD ARGUMENTS OF BOTH THE SIDES AND CA REFULLY PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD. LD. SENIOR COU NSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED A COPY OF THE ORDER OF HONBLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI IN ASSESSEES OWN ITA 2367/DEL/2013 ASSTT.YEAR: 2008-09 2 CASE I.E. SUZUKI MOTORCYCLE (INDIA) PVT. LTD. VS CIT 357 ITR 250 (DEL) AND SUBMITTED THAT SIMILAR KIND OF ISSUE OF INVENTORY W RITTEN OFF HAS BEEN ALLOWED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. LD. DR FAIRLY ACCEPTED THAT SIMILAR KIND OF ISSUE FOR AY 2008-09 HAS BEEN ALLOWED BY HONBLE HIGH COURT IN F AVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE RELEVANT FIGURES FOR VERIFICATION ON THIS LIMIT ED ISSUE FOR LIMITED PURPOSE HAVE BEEN REMITTED TO THE AO FOR VERIFICATION. THE RELEVANT OPERATIVE PART OF THE ORDER OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT (SUPRA) READS AS UN DER:- 8. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE FACTS AND THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS. THE FIGURES SET OUT IN THE CHART IN AN NEXURE G HAVE BEEN CULLED, ACCORDING TO THE COUNSEL FOR THE ASSES SEE, FROM THE ACCOUNTS THEMSELVES AND THEREFORE DESERVE A LOOK. T HERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT THE PRINCIPLE 'COST OR NET REALIZABLE VALUE, WHICHEVER IS LOWER' IS AN ACCEPTED METHOD OF VALUATION OF INV ENTORY. THERE IS ALSO NO DISPUTE THAT AS-2 ISSUED BY THE INSTITUT E OF CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS OF INDIA ARE BINDING ON BOTH THE ASSESS EE AS WELL AS THE TAX AUTHORITIES UNDER SECTION 145 OF THE ACT. T HE ONLY OBJECTION OF THE REVENUE, ACCEPTED BY THE TRIBUNAL, IS THAT THE WRITE OFF FACTOR OF 8.5% HAS NOT BEEN PROVED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE FIGURES WHICH ARE SET OUT BY THE ASSESSEE IN ANNEXU RE G SHOW HOW THE ASSESSEE ARRIVED AT THE WRITE OFF FACTOR. T HESE FIGURES HAVE TO BE VERIFIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. WHILE THEREFORE HOLDING THAT THE TRIBUNAL WAS NOT RIGHT IN ACCEPTIN G THE REVENUE'S CONTENTION IN PRINCIPLE, WE DIRECT THE ASSESSING OF FICER TO VERIFY THE FIGURES FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE IN SUPPORT OF THE WRITE OFF FACTOR OF 8.50% AND COMPLETE THE ASSESSMENT AFRESH ON THIS LIMITED ISSUE. THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW IS A CCORDINGLY, ANSWERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE, SUBJECT TO THE REMIT ORDER PASSED BY US. 3. ON CAREFUL PERUSAL OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IN THE PRESENT APPEAL, WE CLEARLY OBSERVE THAT THE CIT(A) HAS ALSO FOLLOWED ORDER OF HONBLE HIGH COURT AND HAS DIRECTED THE ASSESSEE TO VERIFY THE PERCENTAGE OF INVENTORY ITA 2367/DEL/2013 ASSTT.YEAR: 2008-09 3 WRITTEN OFF AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. IN THIS S ITUATION AND UNDER ABOVE NOTED FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ARE INCLINED TO HOLD TH AT THE SOLE ISSUE IN THIS APPEAL IS SQUARELY COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY TH E HONBLE HIGH COURT (SUPRA) AND WE ARE UNABLE TO SEE ANY VALID REASON TO INTERF ERE WITH THE IMPUGNED ORDER AND WE UPHOLD THE SAME. ACCORDINGLY, SOLE GROUND O F THE REVENUE BEING DEVOID OF MERITS IS DISMISSED. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISM ISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 08/05/2015. SD/- SD/- (S.V. MEHROTRA) (CHANDRAMOHAN GARG) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DT. 08TH MAY 2015 GS COPY FORWARDED TO:- 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(A) 4. CIT. 5. DR BY ORDER ASSTT. REGISTRAR
