Can excise refund be reduced from the cost of plant & machinery?

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
(DELHI BENCH ‘A’ : NEW DELHI)
BEFORE SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER
and
SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
(THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE)
ITA No.2419/Del./2018
(Assessment Year : 2015-16)

ACIT, Central Circle 29,

New Delhi.

vs

M/s. Abhisar Buildwell (P) Ltd.,

1711, S.P. Mukherjee Marg,

Delhi – 110 006.

ASSESSEE BY : Shri Satyajeet Goel, Advocate
REVENUE BY : Shri Rajesh Kumar, Senior DR
Date of Hearing : 26.08.2021
Date of Order : 15.09.2021
O R D E R

Briefly stated the facts necessary for adjudication of the controversy at hand are : Assessee company came into existence pursuant to a scheme of demerger approved by Hon’ble Delhi High Court vide order dated 11.09.2007 as a result of demerger of latex rubber thread unit of M/s. Dharampal Satyapal Ltd. having its manufacturing unit at Agartala. Assessee company by filing return of income for the year under assessment declared a net loss of Rs.13,43,34,403/- and has claimed depreciation amounting to Rs.2,82,24,375/-.

2. In view of the above facts and circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that Excise duty refund, is not in the form of capital subsidy or grant, which can be reduced from the cost of assets. Therefore, I agree with the argument of the appellant and in facts and circumstances as discussed above, with due respect, I differ from the findings of Ld. CIT(A) in the earlier Assessment years i.e. for A Y. 2007-08 to A Y.2011-12 on the same issue and also, in view of the ratio laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the above referred case and the order dated 15.07.2016 passed by me for the preceding assessment years i.e. A Y.2012-13 and A Y.2013-14 vide Appeal no. 328/15-16/2305 and 70/16-17/2504 respectively. Accordingly, findings of the AO are erroneous and therefore, disallowance of Rs.4, 12, 17,481/ - is deleted.

3. In view of what has been discussed above and following the orders passed by the coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in Assessment Years 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012-13 & 2013-14 (supra) which are based upon the decision rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in case of CIT vs. Meghalaya Steels Ltd. (2016) 383 ITR 217 (SC), we are of the considered view that the excise refund is in the nature of revenue receipt forming part of the profit and gains arising from the business and as such cannot be reduced from the cost of plant & machinery.

4. Consequently, finding no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the ld. CIT (A), the appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby dismissed.
Order pronounced in open court on this 15th day of September, 2021.

Please find attached the enclosed file for the full judgement