Milton Laminates Ltd., Ahmedabad V. The ACIT.,(OSD)-I,Range-4, Ahmedabad

ITA 950/AHD/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 125 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4126 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 year(s) 4 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-08-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 20-06-2017
• Assessment Year: 1999-2000
• Appeal Filed On: 05-04-2013
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: TUHAR H VASA
• Keywords: Reassessment proceedings
• Section: 43B; 143(3); 147; 54; 154

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD A BENCH BEFORE: SHR I RAJPAL YADAV , JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MILTON LAMINATES LTD. , CHITRA AMI APARTMENT, OPP. OLD RBI, ASHRAM ROAD, AHMEDABAD - 380009 PAN: AABCM0398K (APPELLANT) VS THE ACIT(OSD) - 1, RANGE - 4, 1 ST FLOOR, NAVJEEVAN TRUST BUILDING, BEHIND GUJARAT VIDHYAPITH, AHMEDABAD - 380014 (RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY : S H RI PRASOON KABRA , SR. D . R. ASSESSEE BY: S H RI TUHAR H. VASA , A.R. DATE OF HEARING : 08 - 06 - 2 018 DATE OF PRONOUNC EMENT : 08 - 08 - 2 018 / ORDER P ER : AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : - THIS ASSESSEE S APPEAL FOR A.Y. 1999 - 2000 , ARI SES FROM ORDER OF THE CIT(A) - XX I, AHM EDABAD DATED 28 - 01 - 2013 , IN PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 154 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961; IN SHORT THE ACT . 2. THE A SSESSEE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: - [1] THAT THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - XXI, AHMEDABAD HAS ERRED IN NOT ALLOWING THE CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT THAT ELECTRICITY EXPEN SE CAN NOT TO BE DISALLOWED AND THE CLAIM FOR, DEDU CTION OF RS. 59,56,669/ - EXCISE DUTY PAID SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED AS DEDUCTION BY ORDER U/S.154 OF THE I T ACT, 1961 OF LD. ACIT (OSD) - I, RANGE 4, AHMEDABAD AND THAT THE ORDER IS AGAINST LAW, FACTS AND EVIDENCE ON RECORD. [2] THAT THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME T AX (APPEALS) - XXI, AHMEDABAD HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF RECTIFICATION PASSED BY LD. ACIT (OSD) - I, RANGE 4, AHMEDABAD AND DISMISSING THE APPEAL OF THE APPELLANT ON FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. [3] THAT THE LD. ACIT (OSD) - I, RANGE 4, AHMED ABAD DID NOT APPRECIATE THAT DISALLOW ANCE OR ADDITIONS OF RS. 60,000/ - FOR PROVISION OF ELECTRICITY EXPENDITURE CAN BE MADE APPLYING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 43B OF THE ACT R.W.S. 154 OF THE ACT. I T A NO . 950 / A HD/20 13 A SSESSMENT YEAR 1999 - 200 0 I.T.A NO. 950 /AHD/20 13 A.Y. 1999 - 2000 PAGE NO MILTON LAMINATES LTD. VS. ACIT 2 [4] .THAT THE LD. CIT (APPEAL) - XXI , AHMEDABAD DID NOT APP RECIATE THE CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT OF ALL OWING DEDUCTION OF RS.59,56,669/ - AS THE AMOUNT WAS PAID TO EXCISE AUTHORITY DURING THE PRE VIOUS YEAR APPLYING PROVISIONS OF SECTION 43B OF THE ACT. THE LD. CIT (A) ERRED WHILE REJECTING THE CLAIM IN OBSERVING THAT T HE ISSUE OF DEDUCTION OF EXCISE DUTY PAYMENT WAS DULY CONSIDERED AND REJECTED BY ITAT. [5] THAT THE LD. ACIT (OSD) - I, RANGE 4, AHMEDABAD AND LD. CIT(A) - XX, AHMEDABAD DID NOT APPRECIATE THE DIRECTIONS OF THE HON'BLE ITAT AND ALSO THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY TH E DEPARTMENT'S REPRESENTATIVE BEFORE THE HON'BLE ITAT, THAT THE CLAIM FOR EXCISE REFUND IF DISALLOWED AND ADDED AS INCOME OF THE ASST. YEAR 1991 - 92, THE SAME WILL BE ALLOWED IN THE YEAR OF PAYMENT I. E. ASST. YEAR 1999 - 2000. [6] THAT THE LD. ACIT (OSD) - I, RANGE 4, AHMEDABAD DID NOT APPRECIATE THAT THERE WAS MISTAKE APPARENT FROM THE RECORD AND ALSO A MISTAKE OF LAW IN NOT GRANTING DEDUCTION FOR PAYMENT OF EXCISE DUTY OF RS.59,56,669/ - IN THE YEAR OF PAYMENT AND WAS A LLOWABLE DEDUCTION U/S.43B OF THE ACT. TH E CLAIM OF THE COMPANY WAS ALLOWABLE APPLYING THE DECISION OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF BERGER PAINT AND HON'BLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT WHERE IN IT IS HELD THAT THE DEDUCTION FOR TAXES PAID SHOULD BE ALLOWED AS DEDUCTION IN THE YEAR OF PAYMENT. [7] IN VIEW OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES AS WELL AS ARGUMENTS THAT MAY BE SUBMITTED DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT - (A) THAT THE ADDITION OF RS.60,000/ - MADE BY THE LD. ACIT (OSD) - I, RANGE 4, AHMEDABAD MAY PLEASE BE DELETED. (B) THAT THE DEDUCTION OF EXCISE DUTY PAD FOR RS.59,56,669/ - CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT MAY PLEASE BE ALLOWED. (C) SUCH OTHER RELIEF OR REDUCTION AS THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, SO REQUIRES BE GRANTED. 3. THE ASSESSMENT FOR TH E YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WAS MADE UNDER SECTION 143 (3) READ WITH SECTION 147 OF THE ACT ON 27TH DEC.2006 AND THE TOTAL INCOME WAS ASSESSED AT RS.69 ,7 6,4 6 7. 4. THE BRIEF FACT PERTAINING TO GROUND OF APPEAL NO. 3 OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS INITIATED PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 154 OF THE ACT TO TAX RS.60,000 BEING ELECTRICITY CHARGES REMAINED UNPAID TILL THE DATE OF FILING THE RETURN OF INCOME AS PER PROVISIONS OF SECTION 139(1) OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS DISALLOW ED THIS AMOUNT BECAUSE THE SAME WAS NOT PAID TIL L THE DATE OF FILING OF RETURN OF INCOME AS PER PROVISION OF SECTION 43B OF THE ACT. THE OTHER ISSUE REGARDING CLAIM FOR, DEDUCTION OF RS. 59,56,669/ - FOR EXCIS E DUTY PAID AS PER GROUNDS OF APPEAL 1 TO 2 AND 4 TO 7 A RE INTERCONNECTED THEREFORE FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE THE SAME ARE ADJUDICATED TOGETHER. 5. REGARDING ITS CL AIM OF DEDUCTION OF EXCISE DUTY THE ASSESSEE HAS EXPLAINED IN ITS REPLY DATED 26TH OF JULY 2010 TO THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE ISSUED BY I.T.A NO. 950 /AHD/20 13 A.Y. 1999 - 2000 PAGE NO MILTON LAMINATES LTD. VS. ACIT 3 THE ASSESSING OFFICER AT THE TIME OF 154 PROCEEDINGS THAT THIS ISSUE IS PERTAINED TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1991 - 92 . DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 1991 - 92 THE ASSESSEE HA D RECEIVED REFUND OF EXCISE DUTY BUT IT DID NOT INCLUDE IN ITS TOTAL INCOM E ON THE GROUND THAT THE NATURE OF THIS REFUND WAS PROVISIONAL AS THE CENTRAL EXCISE DEPARTMENT HA D PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE THE HON BLE SUPREME COURT, HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT ACCEPTED THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE AND STATED THAT EXCISE R EFUND OF RS. 59,56,669/ - RECEIVED DURING THE YEAR BY THE ASSESSEE WAS THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE OF THE YEAR 1991 - 92 . AGAINST THE ADDITION MADE IN THE YEAR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1991 - 92 THE ASSESSEE HAS PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) . THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DECIDED THE MATTER IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. THERE AF T ER , THIS MATTER WAS TRAVELLED UP TO THE ITAT . T HE ITAT HELD VIDE ORDER DATED 29 TH AUGUST, 2013 THAT REFUND OF EXCISE DUTY OF RS. 59,56,669/ - WAS TO BE TAXED IN THE HAND OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE A SSESSMENT YEAR 1991 - 92. SUBSEQUENTLY , WHEN THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE RE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S 143(3) R.W.S.147 OF THE ACT FOR THE YEAR 1999 - 2000 WAS PENDING BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE HA D PUT FORWARD ITS CLAIM OF DEDUCTION IN RESPECT PAYMENT OF EXCISE DUTY U/S. 43B OF THE ACT BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A) HOWEVER HE HAS REFUSED TO ENTERTAIN THE ASSESSEE S CLAIM FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF HON BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF SUN ENGINEERING WHEREIN IT WAS HELD AS UNDER: - 'A MATTER NOT AGITATED IN THE CONCLUDED ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ALSO CANNOT BE PERMITTED TO BE AGITATED IN THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS UNLESS RELATABLE TO THE ITEMS SOUGHT TO BE TAXED AS 'ESCAPED INCOME'. INDEED, IN THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS FOR BRINGING TO TAX ITEMS WHICH HAD ESCAPED ASSESSMENT, IT WOULD BE OPEN TO THE ASSESSEE TO PUT FORWARD CLAIMS FOR DEDUCTION OF ANY EXPENDITURE IN RESPECT OF THAT INCOME OR REGARDING THE NON - TAXABILITY OF THE ITEMS AT ALL SECTION 147 BEING FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE REVENUE A ND NOT THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE PERMITTED TO CONVERT THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS INTO AN APPEAL OR REVISION IN DISGUISE AND SEEK RELIEF IN RESPECT OF ITEMS EARLIER REJECTED OR CLAIM RELIEF IN RESPECT OF ITEMS NOT CLAIMED IN THE ORIGINAL ASSESS MENT PROCEEDINGS. UNLESS RELATABLE TO 'ESCAPED INCOME'. EVEN IN CASES WHERE THE CLAIMS OF THE ASSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS RELATING TO THE ESCAPED INCOME ARE ACCEPTED. STILL THE ALLOWANCE OF SUCH CLAIMS HAS TO BE LIMITED TO THE EX TENT TO WHICH THEY REDUCE THE INCOME TO THAT ORIGINALLY ASSESSED. THE INCOME, FOR PURPOSES OF 'REASSESSMENT' CANNOT BE REDUCED BEYOND THE INCOME ORIGINALLY ASSESSED.' I.T.A NO. 950 /AHD/20 13 A.Y. 1999 - 2000 PAGE NO MILTON LAMINATES LTD. VS. ACIT 4 AFTER FOLLOWING THE ABOVE CITED DECISION OF T HE HON BLE SUPREME COURT, LD. CIT(A) HAS R EJECTED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREAFTER , THE ASSESSEE HAS PREFERRED APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1999 - 200 .T HE ITAT HA D ALSO REJECTED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE STATING THAT THIS ISSUE WAS NOT RAISED IN THE ORIGI NAL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND IN FACT EVEN IN RE - ASSESSMENT THIS ISSUE WAS NOT RAISED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THEREFORE, ON THESE FACTS, THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE PERMITTED TO RAISE THIS ISSUE FOR THE FIRST TIME BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). VIDE ORDER U/S 1 54 OF THE ACT T HE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS REJECTED THE REQUEST OF THE ASSESSEE FOR DEDUCTION OF EXCISE DUTY PAID ON THE GROUND THAT THERE IS NO APPARENT MISTAKE FROM RECORD. THEREAFTER , THE ASSESSEE HAS PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT APPEAL WHO HA S ALS O REJECTED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE AGAINST ORDER U/S. 154 PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER STATING THAT THERE IS NO MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD. 6 . DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE US, THE LD. COUNSEL HAS FURNISHED PAPER BOOK CONTAI NING DETAILS OF SUBMISSION MADE BEFORE ASSESSING OFFICER AND LD. CIT(A) . H E HAS CONTENDED THAT CLAIM OF DEDUCTION OF RS. 59,56,669/ - OF EXCISE DUTY PAID BY THE ASSESSEE SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED AS DEDUCTION VIDE ORDER U/S. 154 OF THE ACT. ON THE OTHER HAN D, LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE HAS SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A). 7 . WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD CAREFULLY. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 147 OF THE ACT ON 27/12/ 2006. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS INITIATED PROCEEDINGS U/S 154 OF THE ACT THAT AS PER ANNEXURE - G FOR THE PURPOSE OF SECTION 43B AN AMOUNT OF RS. 6 0, 000/ - BEING ELECTRICITY CHARGES REMAINED UNPAID TILL THE DATE OF FILING OF INCOME TAX RETURN A S PER PROVISION OF SEC. 139(1) OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE RESPONDED THAT THIS EXPENSES IS NOT COVERED BY THE PROVISION OF SECTION 43B OF THE ACT, HOWEVER, IT HAS FAILED TO FURNISH THE SUPPORTING DETAILS OF INCURRING OF THIS EXPENSES BEFORE THE ASSESSING OF FICER AND BEFORE THE CIT(A) AT I.T.A NO. 950 /AHD/20 13 A.Y. 1999 - 2000 PAGE NO MILTON LAMINATES LTD. VS. ACIT 5 THE TIME OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. E VEN DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE US THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO PROVE INCURRING OF THIS EXPENSES WITH RELEVANT SUPPORTING MATERIAL THEREFORE WE DO NOT FIND ANY ERRO R IN THE DECISION OF LD. CIT(A) TO DISALLOW THE CLAIM OF ELECTRICITY CHARGES FOR WANT OF SUPPORTING MATERIAL OF INCURRING OF THIS EXPENSES. THEREFORE, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF ASSESSE IS DISMISSED. 7.1 THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL FROM 1 TO 2 AND 4 TO 7 ARE INTERRELATED PERTAINING TO THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION OF RS. 59,56,669/ - OF EXCISE DUTY PAID. WE HAVE NOTICED THAT THIS ISSUE HAS ORIGIN IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1991 - 92 WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED REFUND OF EXCISE DUTY. DURING THE COURSE ASSESSMENT PR OCEEDINGS BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1991 - 92, THE ASSESSE CONTENDED THAT THE SAME HAS NOT BEEN CONSIDERED AS INCOME OF THE YEAR BECAUSE THE CENTRAL EXCISE DEPARTMENT HAS FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE HON BLE SUPREME COURT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT ACCEPTED THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE AND INCLUDED THE EXCISE DUTY REFUND OF RS. 59,56,669/ - AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSE COMPANY FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1991 - 92 AS PER ORDER U/S. 143(3) DATED 31/03/1994. THE ASSESSEE HAS PREFERRED APPEAL BEFOR E THE LD. CIT(A) AND THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DELETED THE ADDITION. THE DEPARTMENT HAS FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE ITAT. THE ITAT HAS HELD VIDE ORDER ITA NO. 3181/AHD/96 DATED 29/08/2003 THAT THE SAID REFUND AMOUNT WAS TO BE INCLUDED AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSE E COMPANY IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 1991 - 92 AND WOULD BE ENTITLED TO DEDUCTION IN FUTURE U/S. 43B WHEN THE LIABILITY IS PAID BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. THE ISSUE OF TAXABILITY OF EXCISE REFUND WAS DECIDED BY THE HON BLE SUPREME COURT WHEREIN IT IS HELD THAT THE AS SESSEE HAS TO PAY THE EXCISE DUTY. THE ASSESSEE HAS STATED THAT THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF EXCISE DUTY LIABILITY AS A RESULT OF SUPREME COURT DECISION WAS PAID AND DISCHARGED BEFORE 30 TH AUGUST, 1998 WITHIN ASSESSMENT YEAR 1999 - 2000. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS ST ATED THAT IT HAD CLAIMED THE DEDUCTION OF RS. 59,56,559/ - BY THE NOTE IN THE STATEMENT OF COMPUTATION OF INCOME , SINCE, AT THE TIME OF FILING OF RETURN OF INCOME FOR I.T.A NO. 950 /AHD/20 13 A.Y. 1999 - 2000 PAGE NO MILTON LAMINATES LTD. VS. ACIT 6 ASSESSMENT YEAR 1999 - 200 0, THE ADDITION MADE BY ASSESSING OFFICER IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 1991 - 92 WAS DELETED BY THE LD. CIT(A) A N D THE APPEAL FILED BY THE DEPARTMENT WAS PENDING FOR HEARING BEFORE THE ITAT. THEREAFTER THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE THE CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION OF EXCISE DUTY BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AT THE TIME OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS AGAI NST THE ADDITION MADE IN RE - ASSESSMENT MADE U/S. 143(3) R.W.S 147 OF THE ACT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1999 - 200 0 . THE LD. CIT(A) HAS NOT ENTERTAINED THE ASSESSEE S CLAIM FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF HON BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF THE SUN ENGINEERING WH EREIN IT IS HELD THAT A MATTER NOT AGITATED IN THE CONCLUDED ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ALSO CANNOT BE PERMITTED TO BE AGITATED IN THE RE - ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING UNLESS RELATABLE TO THE ITEMS SOUGHT TO BE TAXED AS ESCAPED INCOME. THE ITAT HAS ALSO CONCU RRED WITH THE FINDINGS OF T HE LD. CIT(A) AS STATED ABOVE IN THIS ORDER . VIDE LETTER DATED 26/07/2010 THE ASSESSEE HAS REQUESTED FOR RECTIFICATION TO CONSIDER ITS CL A IM FOR DED U CTI ON OF RS . 59,56,669/ - U/S. 43B OF THE. THE APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS REJECTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND LD. CIT(A) STATING THAT THERE WAS NO MISTAKE APPARENT F R O M THE RECORD . 7.2 IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE FAC TS AND CIRCUMSTANCES , IT IS CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED THE REFUND OF EXCISE DUTY DURING THE FINANCI AL YEAR RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 1991 - 92. SUBSEQUENTLY, DURING THE FINANC IAL YEAR 1998 - 99 THE ASSESSEE HA S PAID THE EXCISE DUTY OF RS. 59.56 LACS IN PURSUANCE TO THE HON BLE SUPREME COURT DECISION DECIDED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE ON THE BASIS OF APPEAL FIL ED BY THE EXCIDE D EPARTMENT. THE ASSESSE HAS PAID THIS EXCISE DUTY IN OCTOBER - MARCH, 1998 BEFORE 31/08/1998 BUT NO DEDUCTION WAS MADE AS THE REFUND RECEIVED IN 1991 - 92 WAS NOT TAXED AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSE E IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF LD. CIT(A) D ATED 23/04/1996 WHEREIN HE HAS HELD THAT T HE AMOUNT OF REFUND RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE IS NOT LIABLE TO BE TAXED U/S. 41(1) DURING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1991 - 92. HOWEVER, SUBSEQUENTLY THE ITAT VIDE ITA NO. 3181/AHD/96 DATED 29/08/2003 HAS HELD THAT THE EXC ISE REFUND IS TO BE INCLUDED IN THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1991 - 92. IT IS I.T.A NO. 950 /AHD/20 13 A.Y. 1999 - 2000 PAGE NO MILTON LAMINATES LTD. VS. ACIT 7 DEMONSTRATED FROM THE ABOVE FACTS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS COME TO KNOW THAT HE IS ENTITLED TO CLAIM DEDUCTION OF EXCISE DUTY PAID AS PER PROVISION OF SECTION 43B OF THE ACT AFTER THE DECISION OF THE ITAT PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 1991 - 92 AS CITED ABOVE . IT IS UNDISPUTED FACT THAT BEFORE THE DECISION OF ITAT DATED 29/08/2003 THE ASSESSEE HAS ALREADY PAID T HE EXCISE DUTY IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1999 - 200 0 IN PURSUANCE OF THE DECISION OF THE HON BLE S UPREME COURT. AFTER PERUSAL OF THE ABOVE FACT S AND CIRCUMSTANCES, WE OBSERVE THAT ASSESSING OFFICER SHOULD CONSIDER THE ISSUE ON MERIT AFTER TAKING INTO ACCOUNT WHETHER THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE APPLICATION DATED 26/07/2010 FOR RECTIFICATION U/S. 154 AFTER RECEIVING THE ORDER OF THE ITAT VIDE ITA NO. 3181 DATED 29/08/2003 WIT HIN THE TIME LIMIT AS PRESCRIBED U/S. 154 (7) OF THE ACT . ACCORDINGLY WE RESTORE THIS ISSUE TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER FOR VERIF ICATION AND DECID ING AFRESH AS DIRECTED ABOVE AFTER AFFORDING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. 8 . IN THE RESULT, THE GROUND NO. 3 OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE STANDS DISMISSED AND THE ISSUE PERTAINING TO THE OTHER COMMON GROUNDS OF APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PR ONOUNCED IN THE OPEN C OURT ON 08 - 0 8 - 201 8 SD/ - SD/ - ( RAJPAL YADAV ) ( AMARJIT SINGH ) JUDICIAL M EMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD : DATED 08 /0 8 /2018 / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO: - 1. ASSESSEE 2. REVENUE 3. CONCERNED CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER / , I.T.A NO. 950 /AHD/20 13 A.Y. 1999 - 2000 PAGE NO MILTON LAMINATES LTD. VS. ACIT 8 / ,