M/s. Sardarpura Dush Utpadak Sahakari Mandali Ltd., Umreth V. The ITO, Ward-2, Anand

ITA 1148/AHD/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4138 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 9 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-02-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 04-05-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: N K GOYAL
• Section: 142(1); 143(2)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD SMC BENC H (BEFORE SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER) ITA. NO: 1148/AHD/2018 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013-14) M/S. SARDARPURA DUDH UTPADAK SAHAKARI MANDALI LTD. AT SARDARPURA, PO, KUNJRAO, TAL-UMRETH-388335 V/S INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 2, ANAND (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN: AAALS0459B APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI N.K. GOYAL, SR. D.R. ( )/ ORDER DATE OF HEARING : 18 -02-202 0 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 20 -02-2020 PER MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER 1. THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIREC TED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A)-4, VADODARA DATED 07.09.2017 PERTAINING TO A.Y. 2013-14 AND FOLLOWING GROUNDS HAVE BEEN TAKEN: ITA NO. 1148 /AHD/2018 . A.Y. 2013-14 2 1. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEA LS) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.4,86,85/7- MADE BY THE ASSES SING OFFICER OUT OF EXPENSES DEBITED TO PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT 2. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A PPEALS) HAS ERRED IN ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT U/S.80P(2)(B) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961. 3. THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT THE DELAY IN FILING OF APPEAL MAY KINDLY BE CONDONED. 4. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER, AMEND OR MODIFY ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ON OR BEFORE THE DATE OF HEAR ING OF APPEAL. 2. FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT ASSESSEE IS IN THE BUSIN ESS OF TRADING IN MILK AND DAIRY PRODUCTS AND STATUS OF THE ASSESSEE IS A CO-OP. SOC IETY. THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY THROUGH CASS. AND NOTICE U/S. 143(2) A ND 142(1) WERE ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE BUT NONE APPEARED. SINCE, THERE WAS NO COOPERATION FROM THE ASSESSEE IN THE ABSENCE OF THAT LD. A.O. DISALLOWED THE EXPENDITURE OF RES. 4,86,856/- AND MADE ADDITION AND PASSED AN EX PARTE ORDER. 3. AGAINST THE SAID ORDER, ASSESSEE PREFERRED FIRST ST ATUTORY APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) WHO DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE HOL DING THAT APPELLANT IS NOT PRIMARY SOCIETY BUT IS A FEDERAL SOCIETY ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF SUPPLY OF MILK OF ITS MEMBER SOCIETIES TO THE GOVERNMENT MILK SCHEME, AMUL. 4. NOW ASSESSEE HAS COME BEFORE US BY WAY OF SECOND ST ATUTORY APPEAL. 5. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE RELEVANT RECORD AND IMPUGN ED ORDER. NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AND LD. D.R. REL IED ON THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. 6. IN THE MATTER OF SHREE CHALTHAN VIBHAG KHAND UDYOG MANDLI LTD. VS. DCIT HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT HAS HELD MATTER IN FAVOU R OF THE ASSESSEE WITH THE FOLLOWING OBSERVATION: ITA NO. 1148 /AHD/2018 . A.Y. 2013-14 3 THE ASSESSEE-SOCIETIES ARE FEDERAL MILK SOCIETIES AND ITS MEMBERS ARE PRIMARY MILK CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES AND THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSES IS TO PURCHASE MILK FROM ITS MEMBERS AND OTHER PRODUCERS OF MILK AT THE RATE, I.E., SIMILAR TO BOTH THE MEMBERS AND OUTSIDE MILK PRODUCERS AND SELL THE MIL K TO VARIOUS PARTIES. INDIVIDUAL PRODUCERS SUPPLY MILK TO THE PRIMARY MIL K COOPERATIVE MILK SOCIETIES. THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER REFUSED TO EXCLUDE TH E FINAL RATE DIFFERENCE PAID FROM THE TOTAL AMOUNT PAID BY THE RESPONDENTS ON TH E GROUND THAT: IT WAS NOT LINKED TO THE QUALITY OF THE MILK LIKE FAT CONTENT OR SOURCE OF MILK, QUALITY OF MILK, PERIOD OF MILK PROCUREMENT. THE TRANSACTIONS WHICH WERE RECORDED AND NOTED DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY SHOWS THAT THE FINAL MI LK RATE DIFFERENCE WAS PAID AFTER ACCRUAL OF NET PROFIT AND PAYMENT OF FINAL MI LK RATE DIFFERENCE WAS NOT INCLUDED IN THE TOTAL PER LITRE PRODUCTION OF COST OF MILK. OUR ATTENTION IS DRAWN TO THE FACT THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX HAS RE CORDED A FINDING THAT IN SOME CASES THE ASSESSES PAID COMMERCIAL PURCHASE PRICE B Y EVEN EXCLUDING THE AMOUNT OF FINAL RATE DIFFERENCE TO MILK PRODUCERS A S COMPARED BY THE PURCHASE PRICE OF MILK TO THE GOVERNMENT AND SOME OTHER CO-O PERATIVE SOCIETIES. 7. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ABOVE SAID HONBLE HIGH COURTS JUDGMENT, WE ALLOW THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 8. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLO WED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 20- 02- 2020 SD/- SD/- (PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA) (MAHAVIR PRASAD) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER TRUE COPY JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD: DATED 20 /02/2020 RAJESH COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: - 1. THE APPELLANT. 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT (APPEALS) 4. THE CIT CONCERNED. 5. THE DR., ITAT, AHMEDABAD. 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER DEPUTY/ASSTT.REGISTRAR ITAT,AHME DABAD