The ACIT, Amritsar. V. The Batala Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd.,

ITA 242/ASR/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 51212 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 6 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-12-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 13-12-2011
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 24-05-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAKESH GOEL
• Assessee Lawyers: PADAM BAHL
• Keywords: Depreciation; Capital receipt; Unabsorbed depreciation
• Section: 271(1)(c); 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL: AMRITSAR BENC H: AMRITSAR BEFORE SHRI H L KARWA, VP AND SHRI D K SRIVASTAVA, AM ITA NO. 245/ASR/2010 AY: 2003-04 DCIT CIRCLE, PATHANKOT V THE GURDASPUR COOPERATIVE SUGAR MILLS LTD, PANNIAR, GURDASPUR PAN: AAAAT 0586 H ITA NO. 242/ASR/2010 AY: 2003-04 A.C.I.T. CIRCLE II, AMRITSAR V THE BATALA COOPE RATIVE SUGAR MILLS LTD, G.T. ROAD, BATALA PAN: AAAAT 0925 E APPELLANT BY: SHRI RAKESH GOEL RESPONDENTS BY: SHRI PADAM BAHL DATE OF HEARING: 13.12.2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 16.12.2011 ORDER D K SRIVASTAVA : WHILE APPEAL BEARING ITA NO.245/ASR/2010 FILED BY THE DEPARTMENT IN THE CASE OF THE GURDASPUR CO-OP S UGAR MILLS LTD. IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) ON 26.3 .2010, THE OTHER APPEAL BEARING ITA NO. 242/ASR/2010 FILED BY THE DEPARTMEN T IN THE CASE OF THE BATALA CO-OP SUGAR MILLS LTD. IS DIRECTED AGAINST T HE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) ON 25.3.2010. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, IT WA S SUBMITTED BY BOTH THE PARTIES THAT THE FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE AND THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL TAKEN BY THE DEPARTMENT IN BOTH THE CASES ARE IDENTICAL AND THEREFORE THEY SHOULD BE DISPOSED OFF BY A CONSOLIDATED ORDER. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER, BOTH THE APPEALS ARE BEING DISPOSED OFF BY A CONSOLIDATED OR DER. 2. IN ITA NO. 245/ASR/2010, THE DEPARTMENT HAS TAKE N THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL:- I) THE LD. CIT(A) UNDER THE LAW AND CIRCUMSTANCES HAS ERRED IN CANCELING THE PENALTY AMOUNTING TO RS.10,50,00,000/ - LEVIED U/S ACIT V.THE BATALA COOP SUGAR MILLS DCIT V. THE GURDASPUR COOP SUGAR MILLS ITAS NO. 242 & 245/ASR/2010 2 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 BY HOLDING TH AT SINCE THE QUANTIFICATION OF CLAIMS OF EARLIER YEARS HAS NOT YET ATTAINED FINALITY, THE APPELLANT CANNOT BE HELD TO FURNISH INACCURATE PART ICULARS OF INCOME BY CLAIMING SET OFF OF BROUGHT FORWARD LOSSES AND UNAB SORBED DEPRECIATION OF EARLIER YEARS AND THIS CANNOT BE HELD TO BE FALS E CLAIM INVITING PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. II) THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS B Y NOT APPRECIATING THAT PENALTY HAS BEEN BASED ON ADDITION MADE BY THE AO OF RS. 25,15,00,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF GRANT-IN-AID, RS. 29,0 7,740/- ON ACCOUNT OF DISTILLERY EXPENSES AND RS. 3,87,637/- ON ACCOUN T OF DEPRECIATION OF DISTILLERY UNIT AND NOT ON ACCOUNT OF QUANTIFICATI ON OF THE BROUGHT FORWARD LOSSES AND UNABSORVED DEPRECIATION. III) THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS BY NOT APPRECIATING THAT ADDITIONS MADE BY THE AO ON THE BASIS OF WHICH THE PENALTY OF RS. 10,50,00,000/- WAS LEVIED WAS IN FACT CONFIRMED BY THE HONBLE ITAT, AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR. IV) APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO AMEND OR ADD ANY OR M ORE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 3. IN ITA NO. 242/ASR/2010, THE DEPARTMENT HAS TAKE N THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL:- 1 WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A), AMRITSAR WAS JUSTIFIED IN LAW AND ON THE FA CTS IN DELETING THE PENALTY OF RS. 6,46,34,850/- IMPOSED U/S 271(1)(C) READ WITH EXPLANATION 4(A) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961. 2 WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A), AMRITSAR WAS CORRECT IN DELETING THE PENALT Y WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACTS THAT THE ADDITION MADE IN THE ASSESSMENT ON WHICH THE PENALTY WAS LEVIED WERE UPHELD BOTH BY THE LD. CIT(A) , AMR ITSAR AND ITAT, AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR. 3 WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A), AMRITSAR WAS CORRECT IN DELETING THE PENALT Y BY FOLLOWING THE ACIT V.THE BATALA COOP SUGAR MILLS DCIT V. THE GURDASPUR COOP SUGAR MILLS ITAS NO. 242 & 245/ASR/2010 3 DECISION OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT GIVEN IN THE CASE OF CIT, AHEMEDABAD V. RELIANCE PETRO PRODUCTS PVT LTD DELIV ERED ON MARCH 17, 2010. 4 WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A), AMRITSAR WAS CORRECT IN FOLLOWING THE FULL BENCH DECISION OF HON'BLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT GIVEN IN THE C ASE OF BUDHEWAL COOP SUGAR MILLS LTD V. CIT DATED 22.5.2009 FOR DEL ETING THE PENALTY OF RS. 6,46,34,850/- TO CONCLUDE THAT SINCE THE INCOME IS TOTALLY EXEMPT US 80P(2)(A)(III) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 PENALTY IS NOT LEVIABLE. 5 THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO AMEND OR ADD ANY MO RE GROUND(S) OF APPEAL. 4. FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE, THE FACTS ARE BEING EXTRACTED FROM THE RECORD OF THE BATALA CO-OPERATIVE SUGAR MILLS LTD. BRIEFLY STATED, THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE, NAMELY, THE BATALA CO-OPERATIVE SUGAR MILLS LTD. IS A COOPERATIVE-SOCIETY REGISTERED UNDER THE PUNJAB COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT. THE ASSESSEE FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR TH E ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL ON 6.9.2003 DECLARING INCOME AT RS.49,98,204 /- FOR THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL WHICH WAS SET OFF AGAINST THE LOSSES/UNABSOR BED DEPRECIATION BROUGHT FORWARD FROM EARLIER YEARS. RESULTANTLY, THE INCOME DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS NIL. DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO THE A SSESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL, THE RDF LOAN WAS CONVERTED BY THE GOVERNMEN T INTO GRANT-IN-AID AMOUNTING TO RS. 31,76,19,858/- OUT OF WHICH A SUM OF RS.11,24,19,858/- WAS OFFERED AS INCOME ON ACCOUNT OF CESSATION OF INTER EST LIABILITIES AND THE REMAINING AMOUNT OF RS. 20,52,00,000/- WAS TREATED AS CAPITAL RECEIPT AND TAKEN TO THE GENERAL RESERVE ACCOUNT. THE AO OBSERV ED THAT THE AMOUNT OF GRANT-IN-AID TAKEN TO THE GENERAL RESERVE ACCOUNT W AS IN THE NATURE OF REVENUE RECEIPT AND CONSEQUENTLY ADDED THE SAME TO THE INCOME DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL. AFTER SETTI NG OFF ALL THE BUSINESS LOSSES AND UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION BROUGHT FORWARDED FROM EARLIER YEARS, THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE WAS DETERMINED AT RS.2,32,53 ,690/- IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE AO U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT ON 10. 3.2006. WHILE COMPLETING THE ASSESSMENT, THE AO ALSO INITIATED PENALTY PROCE EDINGS U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT FOR FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOM E IN RESPECT OF GRANT-IN-AID, WHICH WAS NOT OFFERED TO TAX BY THE ASSESSEE. THE A DDITION OF RS. ACIT V.THE BATALA COOP SUGAR MILLS DCIT V. THE GURDASPUR COOP SUGAR MILLS ITAS NO. 242 & 245/ASR/2010 4 20,52,00,000/- MADE BY THE AO IN THE ASSESSMENT ORD ER WAS SUBJECT MATTER OF CHALLENGE FIRSTLY BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND THEREF ORE BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL. HOWEVER THE AFORESAID ADDITIONS MADE BY THE AO WERE CONFIRMED BOTH BY THE LD. CIT(A) AS ALSO BY THIS TRIBUNAL BY ITS ORDER DA TED 31.12.2008 IN ITA NO. 431/ASR/2008. 5. DURING THE COURSE OF PENALTY PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE AO, THE ASSESSEE NAMELY, THE BATALA CO-OPERATIVE SUGAR MILLS LTD., C ONTENDED THAT THE INTEREST ACCRUED ON RDF LOAN PERTAINING TO EARLIER YEARS AMO UNTING TO RS.11,24,19,858/- WAS OFFERED AS INCOME WHILE THE P RINCIPAL AMOUNT OF RDF LOAN AMOUNTING TO RS.20,52,00,000/- CONVERTED INTO GRANT-IN-AID WAS TREATED AS CAPITAL RECEIPT AND TAKEN TO GENERAL RESERVE ACCOUN T. IT WAS FURTHER STATED THAT THIS FACT WAS DULY DISCLOSED IN NOTE NO. 5 OF THE S TATEMENT OF INCOME ANNEXED WITH THE RETURN. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT SUCH ACCOUNTING TREATMENT WAS DONE ON THE ADVICE OF SHRI S.K. JAIN, ADVOCATE THAT THE CONVERSION OF RDF LOAN INTO GRANT-IN-AID WAS A RECEIPT OF CAPITAL NATURE. IT WAS CONTENDED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE AO THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ACTED IN A BONA FIDE MANNER AND FILED RETURN ON THE BASIS OF ADVICE FROM HIS COUNSE L. IT WAS ALSO CONTENDED THAT ALL THE FACTS MATERIAL TO THE COMPUTATION OF TOTAL INCOME WERE DULY DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS RETURN OF INCOME. THE AO DID NO T ACCEPT THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND ACCORDINGLY LEVIED THE IMPUGNED PE NALTY FOR THE REASONS GIVEN IN THE ORDER OF PENALTY PASSED BY THE AO ON 2 9.6.2009. 6. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF PENALTY PASSED BY THE AO THE ASSESSEE FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) UPON WHICH THE LD. CI T(A) CANCELLED THE IMPUGNED PENALTY LEVIED BY THE AO. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS GIVEN FIVE MAIN REASONS FOR CANCELING THE PENALTY. ONE, THE ASSESSE E HAS DISCLOSED ALL THE FACTS MATERIAL TO THE COMPUTATION OF TOTAL INCOME IN THE RETURN OF INCOME AND OTHER DOCUMENTS ACCOMPANYING THE RETURN OF INCOME AS ALSO IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND THEREFORE THE ASSESSEE C OULD NOT BE SAID TO HAVE FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF HIS INCOME. TWO , THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN THE LEGAL ADVICE OF SHRI S.K.JAIN, ADVOCATE ACCORDING T O WHICH THE AMOUNT OF RDF LOAN CONVERTED INTO GRANT-IN-AID WAS IN THE NATURE OF CAPITAL RECEIPT AND THEREFORE NOT LIABLE TO TAX. THREE, SINCE THE ASSE SSEE ACTED IN CONFORMITY WITH THE LEGAL ADVICE, THE ASSESSEE CAN SAFELY BE SAID T O HAVE ACTED BONA-FIDE. FOUR, THE ISSUE AS TO WHETHER THE AMOUNT OF RDF LOAN CONV ERTED INTO GRANT-IN-AID ACIT V.THE BATALA COOP SUGAR MILLS DCIT V. THE GURDASPUR COOP SUGAR MILLS ITAS NO. 242 & 245/ASR/2010 5 WAS REVENUE OR CAPITAL IN NATURE WAS HIGHLY DEBATAB LE AND HENCE THE PENALTY WAS NOT LEVIABLE. FIVE, IF THE DECISION OF THE FULL BENCH OF THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN BUDDHEWAL COOPERATIVE SUGAR MILLS LTD., 315 ITR 351 (P &H) IS APPLIED THEN ENTIRE INCOME OF THE ASS ESSEE WOULD BE LIABLE TO DEDUCTION U/S 80P(2(A)(III) OF THE ACT AND IN THAT EVENT THE IMPUGNED INCOME WILL NOT BE EXIGIBLE TO BE TREATED AS CONCEALED INC OME. 7. IN SUPPORT OF APPEAL, THE LD. DR INVITED OUR ATT ENTION TO THE FACTUAL ASPECTS OF THE CASE AS ALSO TO THE ORDER OF PENALTY PASSED BY THE AO. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE AMOUNT ADDED OR DISALLOWED IN CO MPUTING THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE IS DEEMED TO REPRESENT THE INCOME I N RESPECT OF WHICH THE PARTICULARS HAVE BEEN CONCEALED, IN TERMS OF EXPLAN ATION 1 TO SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE AMOU NT OF RDF LOAN CONVERTED BY THE GOVERNMENT INTO GRANT-IN-AID HAS BEEN HELD TO B E IN THE NATURE OF REVENUE RECEIPT NOT ONLY BY THE AO BUT ALSO BY THE LD. CIT( A) AND THIS TRIBUNAL AND THEREFORE THE SAID ADDITION WOULD BE DEEMED TO REPR ESENT THE INCOME IN RESPECT OF WHICH THE PARTICULARS HAVE BEEN CONCEALE D BY THE ASSESSEE IN TERMS OF EXPLANATION 1 TO SECTION 271(1)(C) AND THEREFORE THE IMPUGNED PENALTY SHOULD BE SUSTAINED. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT MER E ADVICE OBTAINED FROM SHRI S.K. JAIN, ADVOCATE FOR TREATING THE AMOUNT OF LOAN CONVERTED BY THE GOVERNMENT INTO GRANT-IN-AID AS CAPITAL RECEIPT CAN NOT EXONERATE THE ASSESSEE FROM ITS LIABILITY TO PENALTY. FOR THE REASONS GIVE N IN THE ASSESSMENT/PENALTY ORDER, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THERE WAS NO FULL AND TRUE DISCLOSURE OF FACTS MATERIAL TO THE COMPUTATION OF TOTAL INCOME, BY THE ASSESSEE. 8. IN REPLY, THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTED THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) . 9. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND CAREFULLY CON SIDERED THEIR SUBMISSIONS. THE ASSESSEE IS A COOPERATIVE SOCIETY . ITS ACCOUNTS ARE DULY AUDITED. THE ASSESSEE HAS PLACED BEFORE US A COPY O F STATEMENT OF TAXABLE INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL AS FILE D ALONG WITH THE RETURN OF INCOME BEFORE THE AO AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSE E HAS STATED IN THE SAID STATEMENT THAT A SUM OF RS.22,52,00,000/- BEING RDF LOAN WAS CONVERTED BY THE GOVERNMENT AS GRANT-IN-AID AND TAKEN TO THE GEN ERAL RESERVE ACCOUNT. THE AFORESAID FACTUAL POSITION IS QUITE APPARENT ON BAR E PERUSAL OF THE STATEMENT OF ACIT V.THE BATALA COOP SUGAR MILLS DCIT V. THE GURDASPUR COOP SUGAR MILLS ITAS NO. 242 & 245/ASR/2010 6 INCOME FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ALONG WITH THE RETURN OF INCOME BEFORE THE AO. AS STATED EARLIER, THE ASSESSEE IS A COOPERATIVE SO CIETY. ITS ACCOUNTS ARE DULY AUDITED IN WHICH THE SAID SUM HAS BEEN DULY REFLECT ED. IT WAS BY WAY OF CAUTION THAT THE ASSESSEE CHOSE TO SPECIFICALLY IND ICATE IN THE STATEMENT OF INCOME THAT A SUM OF RS.22,52,00,000/- BEING RDF LO AN HAS BEEN CONVERTED BY THE GOVERNMENT INTO GRANT-IN-AID AND TAKEN TO THE G ENERAL RESERVE ACCOUNT. ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE, WE ARE UNABLE TO HOLD THA T THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT MADE FULL AND TRUE DISCLOSURE OF ALL THE RELEVANT FACTS IN THE RETURN OF INCOME AND THE STATEMENTS ACCOMPANYING THE RETURN. WE CONFIRM THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN THIS BEHALF. 10. WE ALSO FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SOUGHT THE A DVICE OF SHRI S.K.JAIN, ADVOCATE IN THE MATTER BY ITS LETTER DATED 30.10.20 03. IT IS ON THE ADVICE OF ITS COUNSEL THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS TREATED THE IMPUGNED RECEIPT AS CAPITAL RECEIPT. COPY OF ADVICE GIVEN BY SHRI SK JAIN HAS BEEN PLACE D BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US. AS HELD BY THE LD. CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT ONLY SOUGHT LEGAL ADVICE BUT ALSO ACTED ON THE SAME WHILE FILING THE RETURN OF I NCOME. THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE SOUGHT THE LEGAL ADVICE IN THE MATTER ALSO INDICATES THAT IT ACTED BONA FIDE IN THE MATTER. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS GIVEN DETAI LED REASONS IN HIS APPELLATE ORDER IN THIS BEHALF. WE ARE IN AGREEMENT WITH THEM . 11. EXPLANATION 1 TO SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT R EADS AS UNDER:- EXPLANATION 1 WHERE IN RESPECT OF ANY FACTS MATE RIAL TO THE COMPUTATION OF THE TOTAL INCOME OF ANY PERSON UNDER THIS ACT:- (A) SUCH PERSON FAILS TO OFFER AN EXPLANATION OR OF FERS AN EXPLANATION WHICH IS FOUND BY THE (ASSESSING) OFFICER OR THE (C OMMISSIONER (APPEALS) (OR THE COMMISSIONER) TO BE FALSE, OR (B) SUCH PERSON OFFERS AN EXPLANATION WHICH HE IS N OT ABLE TO SUBSTANTIATE (AND FAILS TO PROVE THAT SUCH EXPLANAT ION IS BONA FIDE AND THAT ALL THE FACTS RELATING TO THE SAME AND MATERIA L TO THE COMPUTATION OF HIS TOTAL INCOME HAVE BEEN DISCLOSED BY HIM). THEN, THE AMOUNT ADDED OR DISALLOWED IN COMPUTING T HE TOTAL INCOME OF SUCH PERSON AS A RESULT THEREOF SHALL, FOR THE PURP OSES OF CLAUSE (C) OF THIS SUB-SECTION, BE DEEMED TO REPRESENT THE INCOME IN RESPECT OF WHICH PARTICULARS HAVE BEEN CONCEALED. 12. THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IS FULLY COVERED BY CL AUSE (B) OF EXPLANATION 1 TO SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. IT IS A FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS OFFERED ACIT V.THE BATALA COOP SUGAR MILLS DCIT V. THE GURDASPUR COOP SUGAR MILLS ITAS NO. 242 & 245/ASR/2010 7 EXPLANATION FOR TREATING THE IMPUGNED RECEIPT AS CA PITAL RECEIPT BUT THAT EXPLANATION HAS NOT BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE AO. IN SUC H A SITUATION, WHAT HAS TO BE SEEN IS WHETHER THE ASSESSEE HAS ACTED BONA-FIDE AND DISCLOSED ALL THE FACTS MATERIAL TO THE COMPUTATION OF TOTAL INCOME. WE HAV E ALREADY HELD ABOVE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE FULL AND TRUE DISCLOSURE OF A LL THE FACTS MATERIAL TO THE COMPUTATION OF ITS TOTAL INCOME AND THAT THE ASSESS EE HAS ALSO ACTED BONA-FIDE IN AS MUCH AS IT HAS ACTED ON THE ADVICE OF SHRI S. K. JAIN, ADVOCATE, WHO WAS COMPETENT TO GIVE ADVICE IN THE MATTER. IN SUCH A S ITUATION THE MERE FACT THAT THE EXPLANATION GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN REJE CTED BY THE AO AND RESULTANTLY THE AMOUNT HAS BEEN ADDED/DISALLOWED IN COMPUTING THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE DEEMED TO REPRESEN T THE INCOME IN RESPECT OF WHICH THE PARTICULARS HAVE BEEN CONCEALED. 13. IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IS CONFIRMED. APPEAL FILED BY THE DEPARTMENT IS DISMISSED. 14. AS STATED EARLIER, THE FACTS AND GROUNDS OF APP EAL IN THE CASE OF THE GURDASPUR COOP SUGAR MILLS LTD. ARE IDENTICAL WITH THOSE IN THE BATALA COOP SUGAR MILLS LTD. WE HAVE ALREADY CONFIRMED THE ORD ER OF LD. CIT(A) IN THE CASE OF THE BATALA COOP SUGAR MILLS LTD. FOLLOWING THE SAME, THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IN THE CASE OF THE GURDASPUR COOP S UGAR MILLS LTD. IS ALSO CONFIRMED. APPEAL FILED BY THE DEPARTMENT IS DISMIS SED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 16.12.2011 SD/- SD/- (H L KARWA) (D K SRIVASTAVA) VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AMRITSAR, 16.12.2011 SURESH COPY TO:- 1. THE APPELLANT, THE GURDASPUR COOP SUGAR MILLS LT D./THE BATALA COOP SUGAR MILLS LTD. 2. THE RESPONDENT, DCIT/ACIT 3. THE CIT(A), AMRITSAR 4. THE LD. CIT, AMRITSAR 5. THE D.R., INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, AMRITSAR ACIT V.THE BATALA COOP SUGAR MILLS DCIT V. THE GURDASPUR COOP SUGAR MILLS ITAS NO. 242 & 245/ASR/2010 8