Sadashivrao Mandlik Kagal Taluka Sah. Sakhar Karkhan Ltd, Kolhapur V. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle - 1, Kolhapur

ITA 1569/PUN/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 105 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0172 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 9 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-07-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: PartlyAllowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 27-09-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Commercial expediency
• Section: 271(1)(c); 143(3); 80P

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI S.S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.1569/PUN/2018 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Sadashivrao Mandlik Kagal Tal. Sah. Sakhar Karkhana Ltd., Sushant S. Phadnis C.A., 613 E Ward, Phadnis Chambers, Shahupuri, 1 st Lane, Kolhapur – 416003 PAN : AAAAK1300Q Vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Kolhapur Appellant Respondent आदेश / ORDER PER S.S. GODARA, JM : This assessee‟s appeal for AY 2015-16 arises against the CIT(A)-1, Kolhapur‟s order dated 06-08-2018 passed in case No.CIT(A)-1/10200/17-18 in proceedings under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in short „the Act‟. Case called twice. None appears at the assessee‟s behest. It is accordingly proceeded ex-parte. Assessee by None Revenue by Shri M.G. Jasanani Date of hearing 12-07-2022 Date of pronouncement 27-07-2022 ITA No.1569/PUN/2018 2 2. The assessee pleads the following substantive grounds in the instant appeal: 1) On the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law the Learned CIT(Appeals) erred in law and on merit in confirming the additions made by the Assessing Officer of Rs.31,36,319/- as excess cane price when the cane price was paid in accordance with prevailing market conditions and was based on commercial expediency. 2) On facts and in circumstances of the case the Learned CIT (A) in para 7 of his order has erroneously taken the final cane price for season 2013 – 14 at FRP i.e. Rs. 2449.86 instead of the final cane price actually paid at Rs.2500/- and season 2014 - 15 at FRP i.e. Rs. 2674.31 instead of the final cane price actually paid at Rs. 2675/-. Resulting into unjustified enhancement of income at Rs. 31,36,319/-. This enhancement based on wrong final cane price taken and needs to be deleted. 3) On fact s and in circumstances of the case and in law the Learned CIT(Appeals) erred in enhancing the income by Rs.31,36,319/- and coming to a erroneous conclusion that the entire amount paid to sugar cane farmers is not cost of Sugarcane. The CIT (Appeals) erred in appreciating that the amounts paid were on the basis of the quantity of sugar cane supplied by the farmers during the season and therefore was nothing but cost of sugarcane. 4) On the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law the Learned CIT(Appeals) erred in law and on merit in confirming the additions made by the Assessing Office of Rs.3,84,16,103/- as sugar cane supplied at concessional rate to its members. 5) On facts and in circumstances of the case and in law the Learned CIT(Appeals) has erred in holding that the appellant was not entitled to deduction u/s. 80P (2) (a) (iii) when the issue was fully, covered in the assesses favour by the decision of Punjab & Haryana High Court in case of Budhewal Co.op. Sugar Mills Ltd. as reported in 315 ITR 351. 6) On the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law the Learned CIT(Appeals) erred in law and on merit in initiating penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. ITA No.1569/PUN/2018 3 7) On the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law the Learned CIT(Appeals) erred in law and on merit in levy of interest under section 234 A,B,C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 8) The assessee craves for leave to add, amend, alter or delete any of the grounds of appeal with the permission of the Hon'ble Tribunal. 3. Mr. Jasanani vehemently supported the learned lower authorities action on all three counts i.e. assessee‟s payment of excess cane price, sale of sugar at concessional rate (both to members) and section 80P(2) deduction; disallowed in both the lower proceedings. He fails to dispute that the former twin issues of excess cane price payment as well as sugar at concessional rate are no more res integra as the tribunal‟s various co-ordinate benches, and more particularly ITA No.68/PUN/2018 in The Malegaon Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Limited vs. ITO order dated 21.40.2021 has set aside the concerned assessee‟s substantive grounds back to the assessing authority for its afresh appropriate adjudication. And also that the hon‟ble Punjab & Haryana high court (supra) has accepted section 80P deduction on identical income derived from the sugar co-operative members. We thus accept the assessee‟s third and last substantive ground raising 80P deduction in principle and leave it open for the Assessing Officer ITA No.1569/PUN/2018 4 inter-alia to adjudicate and verify all the relevant facts afresh as per law in consequential proceedings. Ordered accordingly. 4. This assessee‟s appeal is partly allowed in above terms. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 27 th July, 2022. Sd/- Sd/- (DIPAK P. RIPOTE) (S.S. GODARA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER प ु णे Pune; ददिधांक Dated : 27 th July, 2022 GCVSR आदेश की प्रतिलिपि अग्रेपिि/Copy of the Order is forwarded to: 1. अपीऱधर्थी / The Appellant; 2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent; 3. The CIT(A)-1, Kolhapur 4. 5. The Pr.CIT-1, Kolhapur विभागीय प्रविविवि, आयकर अपीलीय अविकरण, पुणे “B” / DR „B‟, ITAT, Pune 6. गार्ड फाईल / Guard file आदेशान ु सार/ BY ORDER, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अविकरण ,पुणे / ITAT, Pune ITA No.1569/PUN/2018 5 Date 1. Draft dictated on 12-07-2022 Sr.PS 2. Draft placed before author 22-07-2022 Sr.PS 3. Draft proposed & placed before the second member JM 4. Draft discussed/approved by Second Member. JM 5. Approved Draft comes to the Sr.PS/PS Sr.PS 6. Kept for pronouncement on Sr.PS 7. Date of uploading order Sr.PS 8. File sent to the Bench Clerk Sr.PS 9. Date on which file goes to the Head Clerk 10. Date on which file goes to the A.R. 11. Date of dispatch of Order.