DCIT, New Delhi V. M/s. Indraprastha Gas Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 5316/DEL/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1302 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-01-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 17-10-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R J S GILL

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES : C NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI I.C.SUDHIR, JM AND SHRI J.SUDHAKAR REDDY, AM ITA NO. 5316/DEL/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09 DY.CIT, CIRCLE 11(1) VS. M/S INDRAPRASTHA GAS LTD. NEW DELHI IGL BHAVAN, PLOT 4 COMMUNITY CETNRE SECTOR 9, R.K.PURAM NEW DELHI 110 009 PAN:AAAC15076R (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY:- SH.R.J.S.GILL, CIT, D.R. RESPONDENT BY:- SH.ALOK GUPTA, C.A . O R D E R PER J.SUDHAKAR REDDY, AM THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE DIRECTED A GAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A)-XV, NEW DELHI DATED 130.8.2012 PERTA INING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 ON THE FOLLOWING GROUND. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING ADDITION OF RS.7,91,01,156/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF RECONCILIATION DIFFERENCE THE CLOSING STOCK OF NATU RAL GAS. 2. RIVAL CONTENTIONS HEARD. ON A CAREFUL CONSIDERA TION OF FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND A PERUSAL OF THE PAPE RS ON RECORD AND THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW, WE FIND THAT THE F IRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY AT PARA 6 OF HIS ORDER HAS HELD AS FOLLOWS. ITA NO: 5316/DEL/2012 PAGE 2 OF 3 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09 INDRAPRASTHA GAS LTD. VS . DY.CIT 6. I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ABOVE SUBMISSIONS OF TH E APPELLANT AND FINDINGS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND FACTS ON RECORDS. ON THE SAME ISSUE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03, 2003-04 AND 2006-07, I HAVE GIVEN DECISION IN FAVOU R OF THE APPELLANT VIDE MY ORDER DT. 27.9.2011, 28.9.2011 AN D 19.10.2011. THE SAME ORDERS HAVE BEEN AFFIRMED BY THE HONBLE DELHI TRIBUNAL VIDE THEIR ORDERS DT. 31.1.2 012 AND 6.3.2012. AS THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03, 2003-04, 2006-07 AND 2008-09 ARE IDENTICAL AND THE ISSUE ON WHICH THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE T HE ADDITIONS IS ALSO THE SAME I.E. RECONCILIATION DIFF ERENCE IN THE CLOSING STOCK OF NATURAL GAS AND ALSO IN VIEW OF TH E FACT THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT BROUGHT ANY NEW FACTS ON RECORD TO PROVE THAT THE LOSS CLAIMED WAS NOT CORRECT, I H OLD THAT THE RECONCILIATION LOSS FOR FY 2007-08 SHOULD BE TAKEN AT 2.61% AS PER THE AUDITED TAX AUDIT REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE A PPELLANT. HENCE BY RELYING ON MY OWN ORDER FOR AYS 2002-03, 2 003-04 AND 2006-07 AND ALSO ORDERS OF THE HONBLE ITAT FOR THE SAME AYS, THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS HEREBY DELETED. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL, IS THEREFORE, ALLOWED. 3. THE FACT THAT THE GAS STORED IN THE PIPE LINES WHIL E IN TRANSIT HAS BEEN TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT AS CLOSING STOCK, IS NO T IN DISPUTE. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED ITS ANNUAL REPORT TO DEMONSTRATE THE SAME. IN SCHEDULE VI UNDER THE HEAD INVENTORIES, NATURAL GAS IN PIPE LINES HAS BEEN TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT. THE JURISDICTIONAL HI GH COURT IN ITA NO. 155/2012 IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. INDRAPRASTHA GA S LTD. JUDGEMENT DT. 22 ND AUGUST, 2012 HELD AS FOLLOWS:- 9. THEREFORE, WE DISPOSE OF THIS APPEAL WITH TH E DIRECTION THAT THE MATTER BE REMITTED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR THE PURPOSES OF DETERMINING VERIFYING AS TO WHETHER GAS IN THE PIPE LINE IN RESPECT OF THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 HAS BEEN INCLUDED IN THE FIGURE OF CLOSING STOCK OR NOT. IF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FINDS THAT THERE IS GAS IN THE PIPE LINE, WHICH HAS NOT BEEN INCLUDED I N THE CLOSING STOCK, TO THAT EXTENT, THE SAME SHALL BE ADDED BACK TO THE CLOSING ITA NO: 5316/DEL/2012 PAGE 3 OF 3 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09 INDRAPRASTHA GAS LTD. VS . DY.CIT STOCK AND INSOFAR AS THE FIGURE OF 3.46% OF THE PUR CHASES IS CONCERNED, THE SAME SHALL BE MODIFIED ACCORDINGLY. FURTHERMORE, THE MODIFIED FIGURE OF 3.46%, IF ANY, SHALL BE COMP ARED WITH PAST YEARS LOSSES AFTER EXCLUDING GAS IN THE PIPE LINE FOR THE EARLIER YEARS TO ARRIVE AT A DECISION AS TO WHETHER THE LOS S/WASTAGE WAS NORMAL OR NOT. 4. AS THE ORDER OF THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY IS IN LINE WITH THE DECISION OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT, WE UPHOL D THE SAME. 5. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISM ISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 4 TH JANUARY, 2013. SD/- SD/- (I.C. SUDHIR) (J.SUDH AKAR REDDY) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBE R DATED: THE 4 TH JANUARY, 2013 *MANGA COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT; 2.RESPONDENT; 3.CIT; 4.CIT (A); 5.DR; 6.GUARD FILE BY ORDER DY. REGISTRAR