Appeal details
Counselvise Citation
[2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 92755 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
Duration Of Justice
5 year(s) 1 month(s) 18 day(s)
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date
11-06-2015
Appeal Filed By
Department
Order Result
Dismissed
Bench Allotted
H
Next Hearing Date
12-03-2015
Assessment Year
2003-2004
Appeal Filed On
23-04-2010
Judgement Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL H BENCH, MUM BAI , , BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH, JM AND SHRI SANJAY ARO RA, AM ./I.T.A. NO. 2250/MUM/2010 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2003-04) THE BOMBAY DYEING & MFG. CO.LTD. NEVILLE HOUSE, J. N. HEREDIA MARG, BALLARD ESTATE, MUMBAI-400001 / VS. JT. CIT(OSD) RANGE (2)(1), AAYAKAR BHAVAN, MUMBAI. ./ ./PAN/GIR NO. AAACT2328K ( ! /APPELLANT ) : ( '#! / RESPONDENT ) ./I.T.A. NO. 3193/MUM/2010 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2003-04) ACIT (2)(1), AAYAKAR BHAVAN, R.NO. 575, 5 TH FLOOR, M.K.ROAD, MUMBAI-400020 / VS. THE BOMBAY DYEING & MFG. CO.LTD. NEVILLE HOUSE, J. N. HEREDIA MARG, BALLARD ESTATE, MUMBAI-400001 ./ ./PAN/GIR NO. AAACT2328K ( ! /APPELLANT ) : ( '#! / RESPONDENT ) $%&' ( ) / ASSESSEE BY : SHRI MADHUR AGARWAL. + ) / REVENUE BY : MS. NEEMA SINGH PANDEY. $+ ) ( . /DATE OF HEARING : 12.03.2015 ) ( . / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 11.06.2015 ITA NO.2250 & 3193/M/2010 THE BOMBAY DYEING & MFG.C O.LTD. 2 / O R D E R PER SANJAY ARORA, A. M.: THESE ARE CROSS APPEALS, I.E., BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE REVENUE, DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL S)-IV, MUMBAI (CIT(A) FOR SHORT) DATED 02.02.2010, PARTLY ALLOWING THE ASSESS EES APPEAL CONTESTING ITS ASSESSMENT U/S.143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ( THE ACT HEREINAFTER) FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR (A.Y.) 2003-04. I.T.A. NO. 2250/MUM/2010 ( ASSESSEES APPEAL ) 2. THE PRINCIPAL ISSUE, RAISED PER ITS GROUND NO.1, IS IN RESPECT OF DISALLOWANCE OF PROVISION MADE FOR A LOSS (AT RS. 1285.64 LACS) ON ACCOUNT OF A FIRM PURCHASE CONTRACT. THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY, IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTUR ER OF CHEMICALS, ENTERED INTO AN AGREEMENT ON 19.03.2003 (WHICH STOOD REVISED ON 25. 03.2003) WITH M/S. KOLMER PETROCHEMICALS, A.G., SWITZERLAND [KOLMER] FOR THE PURCHASE OF 6,000 MT OF RAW MATERIAL, PARAXYLENE, USED IN THE MANUFACTURE OF TH E FINISHED PRODUCT, DMT, AT $ 882 (RS. 44,267/08) PER MT, I.E., AT A COST OF RS. 27.8 2 CR. THE GOODS WERE TO ARRIVE AT MUMBAI, THE LOCATION OF DELIVERY, BETWEEN APRIL 23 AND 25, 2003, WHILE ITS PAYMENT, AS PER THE MODIFIED AGREEMENT, WAS TO BE MADE TWO D AYS PRIOR TO THE ARRIVAL OF THE VESSEL. THE OTHER MATERIAL AMENDMENT WAS THAT THE G OODS HAD TO BE DELIVERED LATEST BY APRIL 30, 2003, FAILING WHICH THE CONTRACT WAS TO B E TREATED AS CANCELLED, AND THE SELLER CONTINUED TO BE RECOGNIZED AS THE OWNER OF THE GOOD S. THE PRICE OF PARAXYLENE, HOWEVER, STARTED FALLING IN THE MONTHS OF MAY AND J UNE, 2003, ATTAINING A LEVEL OF RS. 22,500 PMT (APPROX.) AT THE TIME OF THE FINALIZATIO N OF THE ACCOUNTS FOR THE YEAR, I.E., JUNE 11, 2003. THIS LED TO A CORRESPONDING FALL IN THE PRICE OF DMT, TO RS. 29,000/- PMT. THE ASSESSEE, ACCORDINGLY, PROVIDED FOR THE LO SS INASMUCH AS THE VALUE OF THE RAW-MATERIAL, REALIZABLE ON CONVERSION INTO FINISHE D PRODUCT, HAD FALLEN CONSIDERABLY, WORKING OUT THE SAME AT RS. 14.96 CR. AND, FURTHER, RESULTING LIKELY LOSS AT RS. 12.86 CR. (RS. 27.82 AND RS. 14.96) CR. 3. DISCUSSION : THE ASSESSEES CASE IS THAT THE LOSS HAD BEEN PROVIDED IN COMPLIANCE O F THE ACCOUNTING STANDARD 1 (AS1), WHICH PROVIDES FOR DIS CLOSOURE OF ACCOUNTING POLICIES, ITA NO.2250 & 3193/M/2010 THE BOMBAY DYEING & MFG.C O.LTD. 3 WHEREBY THE ENTERPRISE IS TO, FOLLOWING THE FUNDAME NTAL ACCOUNTING PRINCIPLE OF PRUDENCE, PROVIDE FOR ALL KNOWN LIABILITIES AND LOS SES. RELIANCE STANDS PLACED ON THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS: I) CIT V NAGRI MILLS CO. LTD. (33 ITR 681)(BOM) II) WESTERN MAHARASHTRA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD . V DCIT (22 SOT 13)(ITAT PUNE III) NATIONAL MINERAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. V JCIT (98 ITD 278)(ITAT HYDERABAD) IV) WESTERN COALFIELDS LTD. V ACIT (27 DTR 226)(ITA T NAGPUR) V) ITO V SBI DHFL LTD. (35 TAXMANN.COM 184)(ITAT MU MBAI) VI) SECURITIES TRADING CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD. V ADDL. CIT (ITA NO.449 973/M/2009)(ITAT MUMBAI) THE REVENUES CASE : THE REVENUE DISMISSES THE ASSESSEES CLAIM AS CONTI NGENT. THE GOODS ARE LIKELY TO ARRIVE ONLY IN THE NEXT YEAR, WHEREAT ONLY, THE PROPERTY IN THE GOODS SHALL PASS TO THE ASSESSEE, FOR IT TO TAKE COGNIZANCE OF OR RECOGNIZE THE LOSS ARISING TO IT ON THE FALL IN THE MARKET PRICE OF THE RAW MATERIAL AND, RESULTANTLY, ITS NET REALIZABLE VALUE, WORKED BACKWARDS ON THE BASIS OF THE ESTIMATED REALIZABLE VALUE OF THE FINISHED PRODUCT, WHOSE PRICE DECLINES IN SYMPATHY. TRUE, THE ASSESSEE IS T O PROVIDE FOR ALL KNOWN LOSSES/LIABILITIES, FOLLOWING THE PRUDENCE PRINCIPL E, BUT THE SAME IS ONLY FOR LOSSES THAT HAD ARISEN UP TO THE BALANCE-SHEET DATE, AND NO THO SE ANTICIPATED OR LIKELY TO ARISE IN FUTURE. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE PARTIES, AND PERUSED THE MATER IAL ON RECORD. THE ASSESSEES CLAIM IS NOT MAINTAINABLE, BOTH IN LAW AND IN ACCOU NTANCY. THE CONTRACT IS FIRM, BUT ONLY SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS SPECIFIED THEREIN. I F THE GOODS ARE NOT DELIVERED BY APRIL 30, 2003, THE CONTRACT FAILS, I.E., IS NOT BINDING, AND THERE IS NO QUESTION OF THE ASSESSEE INCURRING ANY LOSSES, I.E., THE LOSS IS CONTINGENT ON THE SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE OF THE CONTRACT. THE LOSS COULD NOT POSSIBLY ARISE ON THE ARRIVAL OF GOODS BEYOND THE CUT OFF DATE (APRIL 30, 2003). MERELY BECAUSE THE AGREEMENT IS EXECUTED IN THE RELEVANT YEAR WOULD BY ITSELF BE NOT SUFFICIENT AND, IN FACT, IS NO GROUND FOR CLAIMING A LOSS, WHERE SO, FOR THE YEAR. IT IS ONLY UPON DELIVERY OF GOODS BY THAT DATE THAT THE LOSS, IF ANY, COULD BE SAID TO HAVE ARISEN TO THE ASSESSEE ON ACC OUNT OF THE SAID FIRM CONTRACT. THIS ITA NO.2250 & 3193/M/2010 THE BOMBAY DYEING & MFG.C O.LTD. 4 OF COURSE WOULD BE SUBJECT TO THE QUALIFICATION THA T IT IS PRETTY CERTAIN, AS ON 31.03.2003, THE BALANCE-SHEET DATE, THAT THE GOODS SHALL ARRIVE IN TIME. IN THE INSTANT CASE ALMOST THE ENTIRE DELIVERY TIME FAIL DURING TH E FOLLOWING YEAR. THERE IS THUS, IN OUR VIEW, NO BASIS IN THE PRESENT CASE FOR SUCH CERTAIN TY. TWO, AND EQUALLY IMPORTANTLY, NO LOSS HAS IN FACT ARISEN DURING THE RELEVANT YEAR. THE LOSS UNDER REFERENCE IS ONLY ON ACCOUNT O F FALL IN THE MARKET PRICE OF PARXYLENE AND, RESULTANTLY, DMT, THE FINISHED PRODU CT. ADMITTEDLY, THE PRICE OF RAW- MATERIAL STARTED FALLING ONLY IN MAY/JUNE 2003, I.E ., AFTER THE END OF THE RELEVANT YEAR ON 31.03.2003. THIS FACT WAS CONFIRMED BY THE BENCH FROM THE LD. COUNSEL DURING HEARING, WHO FAIRLY CONCEDED TO IT BEING IN FACT SO . TRUE, ALL KNOWN LOSSES AND LIABILITIES HAVE TO BE PROVIDED FOR FOLLOWING THE F UNDAMENTAL ACCOUNTING PRINCIPLE OF CONSERVATISM AND PRUDENCE, WHICH STAND SINCE STATUT ORILY INCORPORATED PER AS1 ISSUED BY CBDT U/S.145 OF THE ACT. MARKET PRICES BEING VOLATILE, A LOSS CAN BE SAID TO ARISE ON THE BASIS OF MOVEMENT THEREIN, FIRSTLY, ONLY WHERE THEY EXHIBIT A SECULAR, IRREVERSIBLE DOWNWARD TREND. CLEARLY, WHERE LIKELY TO REVERSE ITSELF, WIL L NOT LEAD TO A LOSS HAVING IN FACT INCURRED AND, CONSEQUENTLY, A FINDING TO THAT EFFEC T. THIS IN FACT APPEARS TO BE THE CASE INASMUCH AS THE FALL IN THE MARKET PRICE OF RAW-MAT ERIAL LED TO A CORRESPONDING FALL IN THE PRICE OF THE FINISHED PRODUCT, I.E., AS PER TH E RULING INTERNATIONAL PRICES, AND SUBSISTED. SECONDLY, THE LOSS/LIABILITIES MUST HAVE IN FACT ARISEN OR ACCRUED, AND WHICH IS NOT SO; THE PRICES STARTING TO FALL ONLY IN MAY 2003, PERHAPS TOWARDS IT END. LOSSES ARISING SUBSEQUENT TO THE RELEVANT YEAR CAN AT BEST , I.E., WHERE MATERIAL, BE TAKEN NOTE OF IN THE NOTES TO THE ACCOUNTS, AND NOT BOOKED. WH Y, THE BOOKING ITSELF REFLECTS THE EXPENDITURE AS BEING CONTINGENT. EACH YEAR IS A SEL F CONTAINED UNIT OF ASSESSMENT, AND LOSSES OF ONE YEAR CANNOT BE CLAIMED OR TRANSFERRED TO ANOTHER YEAR. THOUGH REPRESENTING TRITE LAW AND, IN FACT, AN ARGUMENT AD MITTING OF NOT DEBATE, THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. BRITISH PAINTS INDIA LTD. [1991] 188 ITR 44 (SC) COMES READILY TO MIND. PER THAT DECISION, THE APEX COURT CLARIFIED T HE FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES OF JURISPRUDENCE ON TAX LAW, I.E., IT IS THE CORRECT I NCOME FOR EACH YEAR THAT IS TO BE BROUGHT TO TAX FOR THAT YEAR AND, TWO, EACH YEAR IS AN INDEPENDENT AND SELF-CONTAINED UNIT OF ASSESSMENT. PRUDENCE ONLY IMPLIES THAT EVEN THOUGH THE AMOUNT CANNOT BE ITA NO.2250 & 3193/M/2010 THE BOMBAY DYEING & MFG.C O.LTD. 5 DETERMINED WITH CERTAINTY, AND REPRESENTS ONLY A BE ST ESTIMATE IN LIGHT OF THE AVAILABLE INFORMATION, THE SAME MUST BE PROVIDED FOR. IT NOWH ERE ADVOCATES OR PRESCRIBES PROVIDING FOR LOSS/LIABILITY THAT HAS NOT ARISEN DU RING THE RELEVANT YEAR OR, IN ANY CASE, BY THE END OF THE RELEVANT YEAR. EVENTS AFTER THE B ALANCE-SHEET DATE CAN ONLY BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT IN SO FAR AS THEY INFORM ABOUT THE CON DITIONS PREVAILING DURING THE RELEVANT YEAR, SO AS TO ENABLE A CORRECT ASSESSMENT OF THE OPERATING RESULTS FOR THE YEAR AND THE STATE OF AFFAIRS AS AT ITS CLOSE. THERE IS NOTHING TO SHOW THAT THE MARKET PRICE OF THE RAW-MATERIAL OR THE FINISHED PRODUCTS HAD DECLI NED, MUCH LESS TO ANY SUBSTANTIAL EXTENT, UP TO 31.03.2003, THE RELEVANT YEAR END. THE ASSESSEES CLAIM, IN VIEW OF FOREGOING, IS WITH OUT MERIT. THE DECISIONS RELIED UPON WOULD BE OF LITTLE MOMENT, EVEN AS CLAR IFIED DURING HEARING, IN VIEW OF OUR SPECIFIC FINDING OF NO LOSS HAVING IN FACT ARISEN T O THE ASSESSEE DURING THE YEAR AND, FURTHER, THE PRINCIPLE OF PRUDENCE AS NOT BEING APP LICABLE TO LOSSES WHICH ARISE OR HAVE THEIR GENESIS IN EVENTS SUBSEQUENT TO THE END OF TH E RELEVANT YEAR. AS REGARDS RELIANCE ON THE DECISION IN NAGRI MILLS CO. LTD . (SUPRA), WE MAY ADVERT TO THE DECISIONS IN THE CASE OF MYSORE SPINNING & MFG. CO. LTD. V. CIT [1966] 61 ITR 572 (BOM) AND BRITISH PAINTS INDIA LTD . (SUPRA), BESIDES TO J.K.WOOLLEN MANUFACTURES (P.) LTD. V. CIT [1967] 65 ITR 237 (ALL). WE DECIDE ACCORDINGLY, CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF THE IMPUGNED LOSS. THIS DECIDES GROUND NO.1 OF THE ASSE SSEES APPEAL. 5. GROUND NO.2 WAS NOT PRESSED BY THE LD. AR DURING HEARING, AND IS ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. 6. GROUND NO.3 RELATES TO A DISALLOWANCE IN THE SUM OF RS. 31,26,703/-, BEING THE PROVISION FOR VARIOUS EXPENSES, EFFECTED BY THE AO FOR THE REASON THAT THEY WERE NOT SUPPORTED BY ANY EVIDENCES. IN APPEAL, THE LD. CIT( A) CALLED FOR A REMAND REPORT FROM THE AO IN VIEW OF THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES/MATERIAL S SOUGHT TO BE RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE, GRANTING DELETION WHERE FOUND EVIDENCED A ND/OR SUPPORTED. THE BALANCE DISALLOWANCE, BEING CONFIRMED, THE ASSESSEE IS IN S ECOND APPEAL. 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE PARTIES, AND PERUSED THE MATER IAL ON RECORD. DURING THE HEARING, THE LD. AR, THE ASSESSEES COUNSEL, CONCED ED TO THE ASSESSEE HAVING NO FURTHER DETAILS/MATERIAL TO SUPPORT ITS CLAIM, RELYING ON I TS WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS BEFORE THE ITA NO.2250 & 3193/M/2010 THE BOMBAY DYEING & MFG.C O.LTD. 6 AUTHORITIES BELOW, AND TOWARDS WHICH REFERENCE WAS MADE TO PAGES 18 AND 19 OF THE ASSESSEES PAPER-BOOK. UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE HAVE NO HESITATION IN CONFIRMING THE IMPUGNED DISALLOWANCE. WE MAY, HOWEVER, ELABORA TE FURTHER. THAT AN EXPENDITURE IS ALLOWABLE, WHERE MERCANTILE SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING , AS IN THE PRESENT CASE, IS ADOPTED, EVEN THOUGH NO PAYMENT HAS BEEN MADE, WHICH IS CLAI MED TO HAVE BEEN DURING THE SUBSEQUENT YEAR, IS UNDISPUTED AND NOT IN ISSUE. RE FERENCE, THEREFORE, TO THE DECISION BY THE APEX COURT IN CIT VS. U.P.STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATIO N [1997] 225 ITR 703 (SC) WOULD BE OF NO MOMENT. THE QUESTION IS OF THE BASIS ON WHICH IT COULD BE SAID OR CONCLUDED THAT EXPENDITURE TO THAT EXTEN T HAD IN FACT ACCRUED, AND WHICH WE FIND AS WANTING. THE BURDEN TO PROVE ITS RETURN, AS WELL AS CLAIMS PREFERRED THEREBY, IS ONLY ON THE ASSESSEE, AND WHICH WE FIND AS NOT DISC HARGED TO THAT EXTENT. IT MAY ALSO BE CLARIFIED HERE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD BEEN EXTENDED SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT ITS CASE. NEEDLESS TO ADD, THE ASSESSEE IS A LIBERTY TO MAKE A FRESH CLAIM FOR THE SUBSEQUENT YEAR/S, EVEN AS IT SHALL HAVE TO BE SHOWN BY IT THA T EXPENDITURE AS CLAIMED HAD ARISEN FOR THOSE YEARS, I.E., OF PAYMENT, EACH YEAR BEING INDEPENDENT. WE MAY THOUGH CLARIFY THAT WE ARE NOT MAKING ANY OBSERVATION WITH REGARD TO THE DEDUCTION OF THE SAID EXPENDITURE FOR THOSE YEARS/S. WE DECIDE ACCORDINGL Y, DISMISSING THE ASSESSEES THIRD GROUND. 8. GROUND 4 CONCERNS THE COMPUTATION OF THE DEDUCTI ON U/S. 80HHC, AND WHICH WAS, AT THE VERY OUTSET, AGAIN, ADMITTED BY THE LD. AR TO BE SQUARELY COVERED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE BY THE DECISION OF THE APEX COURT IN T HE CASE OF IPCA LABORATORIES LTD. V. DY. CIT [2004] 266 ITR 521 (SC). WE, ACCORDINGLY, DIRECT F OR COMPUTATION OF DEDUCTION U/S. 80HHC IN TERMS OF THE SAID DECISION BY THE SAID HONBLE APEX COURT. WE DECIDE ACCORDINGLY. 9. THE FIFTH AND LAST GROUND OF THE ASSESSEES APPE AL CONCERNS THE COMPUTATION OF BOOK PROFIT U/S. 115JB OF THE ACT INASMUCH AS THE A SSESSEE CLAIMS FOR THE DEDUCTION U/S. 80HHC TO BE REDUCED IN COMPUTING THE BOOK PROF IT THERE-UNDER. THE MATTER IN OUR VIEW STANDS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE DECISION BY THE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. AJANTA PHARMA LTD. [2010] 327 ITR 305 (SC). WE, ACCORDINGLY, SET-ASIDE THE MATTER ITA NO.2250 & 3193/M/2010 THE BOMBAY DYEING & MFG.C O.LTD. 7 BACK TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR WORKING THE BOOK PRO FIT U/S. 115JB IN TERMS OF THE SAID DECISION. WE DECIDE ACCORDINGLY. I.T.A. NO. 3193/MUM/2010 ( REVENUES APPEAL ) 10. THE APPEAL RAISES TWO EFFECTIVE GROUNDS, I.E., GROUNDS 2 AND 3, WHICH WE SHALL TAKE UP IN SERIATIM; GROUND 1 BEING GENERAL IN NATU RE, WARRANTING NO ADJUDICATION. 11. GROUND 2 OF THE REVENUES APPEAL IS IN RESPECT OF AN ADDITION QUA UNUTILIZED MODVAT CREDIT IN THE SUM OF RS. 354.40 LACS. WHILE THE AO MADE THE ADDITION AS IN HIS VIEW THE UNUTILIZED MODVAT CREDIT WAS REQUIRED TO BE ADDED U/S. 145A, THE LD. CIT(A) DIRECTED FOR INCLUDING THE SAID CREDIT IN TH E VALUE OF THE OPENING STOCK, PURCHASES, SALES AND CLOSING STOCK. WE FIND THE SAM E TO BE A PROPER INTERPRETATION OF SECTION 145A, WHICH, BEING A NON OBSTANTE CLAUSE , SHALL PREVAIL. THE DECISION BY THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN CIT VS. MAHALAKSHMI GLASS WORKS PVT. LTD . [2009] 318 ITR 116 (BOM), FOLLOWED BY HIM, THOUGH W E OBSERVE TO BE ON A DIFFERENT ISSUE, I.E., WHETHER SECTION 145A SHALL APPLY TO TH E OPENING STOCK AS WELL, OR THAT THE SAME SHALL HAVE TO BE TAKEN NECESSARILY AT THE VALU E OF THE CLOSING STOCK FOR IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING YEAR. THE SAME MAY, THEREFORE , NOT BE RELEVANT. THE APEX COURT IN INTERALIA BRITISH PAINTS PVT. LTD . (SUPRA) CONFIRMED THE VALUATION OF BOTH THE OPENI NG AND THE CLOSING STOCK ON THE SAME BASIS, WHICH ASPE CT STANDS DEALT WITH BY THE TRIBUNAL IN SOME DETAIL IN DY. CIT VS. DAMAN GANGA PAPER LTD . [2014] 39 CCH 362 (MUM) (TRIB.), CONSIDERING THE DECISION BY THE HONBLE JU RISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN MELMOULD CORPORATION VS. CIT [1993] 202 ITR 789 (BOM). COMING BACK TO THE DECISION BY THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, IMPUGNED BEFORE US, WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN HIS DIRECTION FOR INCLU DING THE UNUTILIZED MODVAT CREDIT AND, THUS, APPLY THE CONDITION OF SECTION 145A ON A LL FACTORS OF PRODUCTION, I.E. OPENING STOCK, PURCHASES, SALES AND CLOSING STOCK. THIS ALS O REPRESENTS THE CONSISTENT VIEW OF THE TRIBUNAL, AND FOR WHICH WE REFER TO THE DECISIO N IN THE CASE OF HERCULES PIGMENT INDUSTRY VS. ITO [2014] 146 ITD 31 (MUM), RENDERED CONSIDERING ALL THE RELEVANT DECISIONS, INCLUDING IN THE CASE OF MAHALAKSHMI GLASS WORKS PVT. LTD . (SUPRA). WE ACCORDINGLY CONFIRM THE IMPUGNED ORDER ON THIS GROU ND. ITA NO.2250 & 3193/M/2010 THE BOMBAY DYEING & MFG.C O.LTD. 8 12. THE THIRD AND THE OTHER GROUND RELATES TO THE D ELETION OF ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF PREMIUM PAYABLE ON PREMIUM NOTES (SPN). THE MATTER WAS DURING HEARING FAIRLY CONCEDED BY THE LD. DR TO BE COVERED AGAINST THE REVENUE BY THE ORDER BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR AY 1996-97 (IN ITA NO. 8127/M/2004). IN VIEW THEREOF, WE DECLINE INFERENCE. WE DECIDE ACCOR DINGLY. 13. IN THE RESULT, THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES AND THE REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON JUNE 11, 2015 SD/- SD/- (JOGINDER SINGH) (SANJAY ARORA) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI; 4$ DATED : 11.06.2015 $ . ./SHARWAN . PS !'#$ %$' / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. ! / THE APPELLANT 2. '#! / THE RESPONDENT 3. 5( ( ) / THE CIT(A) 4. 5( / CIT CONCERNED 5. 6+7 '($% , . % , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. & / GUARD FILE / BY ORDER, / (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI
