Suzuki Motorcycle (India) Pvt. Ltd., ... vs Department Of Income Tax

Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax, vs Suzuki Motorcycle (India) Pvt. Ltd., Circle-9(1), Room No. 163, Village Kherki Dhaula, C.R. Building, New Delhi. Badshahpur, NH-8, Link Road, Gurgaon-122004 (PAN: AAACI5832P) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri B.R.R. Kumar Sr. DR Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv. Respondent by: Ms Debashree Rao, CA, Sh. Anshul Sachar, Adv.

ORDER

PER CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER

This appeal by the revenue has been directed against 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 deleting the addition of Rs.1,05,78,032/- under the head "inventory written off".

2. We have heard arguments of both the sides and carefully perused the

relevant material placed on record. Ld. Senior counsel for the assessee

submitted a copy of the order of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in assessee's own

1 ITA 2367/Del/2013 Asstt.Year: 2008-09

case i.e. Suzuki Motorcycle (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs CIT 357 ITR 250 (Del) and

submitted that similar kind of issue of inventory written 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 Hon'ble High Court in favour of the assessee and

the relevant figures for verification on this limited issue for limited purpose

have been remitted to the AO for verification. The relevant operative part of the

order of the Hon'ble High Court (supra) reads as under:-

"8. We have carefully considered the facts and the rival contentions. The figures set out in the chart in Annexure G have been culled, according to the counsel for the assessee, from the accounts themselves and therefore deserve a look. There is no dispute that the principle "cost or net realizable value, whichever is lower" is an accepted method of valuation of inventory. There is also no dispute that AS-2 issued by the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India are binding on both the assessee as well as the tax authorities under Section 145 of the Act. The 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 Annexure G show how the assessee arrived at the write off factor. These figures have to be verified by the Assessing officer. While therefore holding that the Tribunal was not right in accepting the revenue's contention in principle, we direct the assessing officer 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 accordingly, 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 Hon'ble

High Court and has directed the assessee to verify the percentage of inventory

2 ITA 2367/Del/2013 Asstt.Year: 2008-09

written off as claimed by the assessee. In this situation and under above noted

facts and circumstances, we are inclined to hold that the sole issue in this appeal

is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the Hon'ble High Court (supra)

and we are unable to see any valid reason to interfere with the impugned order

and we uphold the same. Accordingly, sole ground of the revenue being devoid

of merits is dismissed.

4. In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed.

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

3