New Phaltan Sugar Works Ltd., Satara V. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax,

ITA 238/PUN/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 117 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6706 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 2 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-05-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 17-02-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Non-deduction of tax
• Section: 40(a)(ia)

Judgement Text

] IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH A, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JM . / ITA NO.238/PUN/2016 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011-12 M/S. NEW PHALTAN SUGAR WORKS LTD., A/P, SAKHARWADI, TAL. PHALTAN, DIST. SATARA. PAN : AAACN9008Q. . / APPELLANT V/S THE ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SATARA CIRCLE, SATARA. . / RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : NONE. REVENUE BY : SHRI RAJESH GAWALI. / ORDER PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JM : THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDE R OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) 2, PUNE DATED 15.1 0.2015 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12. 2. THE ASSESSEE IN APPEAL HAS ASSAILED THE ORDER OF CIT(A ) BY RAISING FOLLOWING GROUNDS : 1. THE LEARNED CIT(A)-2, PUNE ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE LEARNED AO AMOUNTING TO RS .69,95,620/- BY TREATING THE PROVISION MADE FOR SUGARCANE PURCHASE AS EXPENDITURE RELATING TO PRIOR PERIOD I.E. AY 2010-11. THE AUTHO RITIES FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE SUGARCANE PERTAINING TO THE PRO VISION OF RS. 69,95,620/- WAS CRUSHED IN A.Y. 2011-12 ITSELF. / DATE OF HEARING : 06.05.2019 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 06.05.2019. 2 ITA NO.238/PUN/2016 2. THE LEARNED CIT(A)-2, PUNE ERRED IN LAW AND ON F ACTS IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE LEARNED AO, AMOUNTING TO R S. 20,44,175/-, ON ACCOUNT OF NON- DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE ON IN TEREST PAYMENT TO SHETKARI KAMGAR PATASANSTHA. HE OUGHT TO HAVE APPRE CIATED THAT THE SAID PARTY WAS A CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY ENGAGED IN TH E BUSINESS OF BANKING AND AS SUCH WAS COVERED UNDER THE EXCEPTION PROVIDED IN SECTION 194A(3) OF THE ITA, 1961. 3. THE LEARNED CIT(A)-2, PUNE ERRED IN LAW AND ON F ACTS IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE LEARNED AO, AMOUNTING TO R S. 8,52,897/-,ON ACCOUNT OF NON-DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE ON PAYMEN T OF GUARANTEE COMMISSION TO CHAIRMAN. HE FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT THE PAYEE PARTY HAD OFFERED THE SAID COMMISSION TO TAX AND HAD DULY PAID THE TAXES THEREON. 3. THE FIRST NOTICE OF THE APPEAL WAS SENT TO THE ASSESS EE ON 13.12.2017 THROUGH REGISTER POST WITH ACKNOWLEDGMENT DUE (RPAD) ON THE ADDRESS MENTIONED IN FORM NO.36 FOR 17.01.2018. TH E NOTICE WAS DULY SERVED AS IS EVIDENT FROM THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT A VAILABLE ON RECORD. ON THE DATE FIXED, NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF T HE ASSESSEE. THE CASE WAS THEREAFTER ADJOURNED TO 04.04.2018 AND FRE SH NOTICE WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE THROUGH RPAD ON 17.01.2018 FOR 04.04.2018. THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF SERVICE OF NOTICE WAS DULY RECEIVED BACK. DESPITE SERVICE OF NOTICE, AGAIN NONE APPEA RED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE DATE FIXED AND THE APPEAL WAS ADJOURNED TO 18.06.2018. THEREAFTER ON ALL SUBSEQUENT DATES I.E., ON 06.09.2018, 14.03.2019, 19.03.2019 AND 06.05.2019 NONE APPEAR ED TO REPRESENT THE ASSESSEE. IT SEEMS THAT THE ASSESS EE IS NOT KEEN TO PURSUE THE APPEAL. UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, THE APPEA L IS TAKEN UP FOR HEARING WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF LD.D.R AND THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. 4. SHRI RAJESH GAWALI REPRESENTING THE DEPARTMENT VEHE MENTLY DEFENDED THE IMPUGNED ORDER AND PRAYED FOR DISMISSING THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE. 3 ITA NO.238/PUN/2016 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY LD. D.R. AND PER USED THE DOCUMENTS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE ASSESSEE COMPA NY IS ENGAGED IN MANUFACTURING OF SUGAR. IN SCRUTINY ASSESSMEN T PROCEEDINGS, THE AO MADE FOLLOWING ADDITIONS / DISALLOWANCES : 1. DISALLOWANCE U/S 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT - RS.32,69,573/- 2. ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF DIFFERENCE IN CANE PRICE - RS.69,95,620/- AGGRIEVED WITH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DT.14.02.2014, THE ASSESSEE FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IN TOTO. HENCE, THE PRESENT APPEAL. 6. BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, NO MATERIAL HAS BEEN PLACED ON RE CORD BY THE ASSESSEE TO SHOW ANY PERVERSITY IN THE IMPUGNED OR DER. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY CONTRARY MATERIAL, WE FIND NO REASON TO INT ERFERE WITH THE FINDINGS OF CIT(A). ACCORDINGLY, THE IMPUGNED ORDER IS UP HELD AND THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 7. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT AFTER HEARING OF THE APPEAL ON MONDAY, THE 06 TH DAY OF MAY, 2019. SD/- SD/- (R.S. SYAL) (VIKA S AWASTHY ) VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMB ER PUNE; DATED : 06 TH MAY, 2019. YAMINI 4 ITA NO.238/PUN/2016 !'#$%&%# / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT 3. 4. 5 6. CIT(A)-2, PUNE. PR. CIT-3, PUNE. '#$ %%&',)&', / DR, ITAT, A PUNE; $,-./ GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER // TRUE COPY // /01%2&3 / SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY )&', / ITAT, PUNE.