Narender Kumar Choudhry ORDER
Anil Chaturvedi, Member (A)
1. This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 24.03.2021 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-23, New Delhi relating to Assessment Year 2017-18.
2. Brief facts of the case as culled out from the material on record are as under:-
3. Assessee is a company stated to be engaged in the business of formulation and marketing of plant protection agro-chemical, including insecticides, herbicides etc. Assessee electronically filed its return of income for A.Y. 2017-18 on 30.11.2017 declaring total income of Rs. 118,61,64,030/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny and thereafter, assessment was framed u/s. 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 23.12.2019 and the total income was determined at Rs. 1,23,48,92,320/-. Aggrieved by the order of AO, assessee carried the matter before CIT(A) who vide order dated 24.03.2021 in Appeal No. CIT(A), Delhi-23/10270/2019-20 dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), assessee is now in appeal and has raised the following grounds of appeal:
1.0 "That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the disallowance, imposition of tax and interest with reference thereto, the quantification of taxable income and the tax liability, has been grossly unjustified, erroneous and unsustainable and necessary direction be given to the CIT(A) to give appropriate relief in accordance with law.
1.1 That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) ought to grant the claim of Education Cess on Income Tax in computing total income under the normal provisions of the Act.
1.2 That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) ought to grant the claim of Excise duty refund as non-taxable under the normal provisions of the Act.
1.3 That the appellant craves leave, to add, to amend modify, rescind, supplement, or alter any of the grounds stated herein-above, either before or at the time of hearing of this appeal."
4. Before us, at the outset, Learned AR submitted that assessee does not wish to press Ground No. 1.1 being the claim of Education Cess in the light of recent amendment brought in the statue by the Finance Act, 2022. Considering the aforesaid submissions of Learned AR, this Ground is dismissed as not pressed.
5. The other effective ground is with respect to the claim of Excise Duty refund as non-taxable under the normal provisions of the Act.
6. It is the contention of the assessee that it had availed Excise Duty Subsidy and had offered the same to tax in the return of income despite the fact that by virtue of the purpose test it was a capital receipt and not chargeable to tax. Before CIT(A), by way of additional ground, assessee pleaded that the Excise duty subsidy is a capital subsidy and therefore not liable to be taxed. CIT(A) has noted that no claim for the amount of Excise duty Subsidy as being capital receipt was made before the AO but however before CIT(A), an additional claim was raised for the claim of Excise duty Subsidy claiming it to be non taxable receipts. CIT(A) at para 4.2 of the order while denying the claim of the assessee noted that no claim was made before the AO and no reasons were furnished by assessee to demonstrate as to what prevented the assessee from raising such claim before the AO. He further noted that facts relating to Excise duty Subsidy were also not available on record which are essential for deciding the issue. He accordingly did not admit the additional ground by the assessee.
7. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), Assessee is now before Tribunal.
8. Before us, Learned AR submitted that assessee had availed Excise duty refund and the same was offered to tax while computing the total income in the return of income. He submitted that the issue was raised before the CIT(A) by way of additional grounds to treat excise duty refund as capital receipt which was rejected by CIT(A). He submitted that Hon'ble ITAT in assessee's own case in A.Y. 2012-13 (ITA No. 5788/Del/2016) had dismissed the Revenue's........