BHIMA SSK LTD, DAUND V. DCIT CIRCLE 1(1) , PUNE

ITA 334/PUN/2020

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 107 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0515 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 4 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-08-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 08-03-2020
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण “ए” न्यायपीठ पुणे में । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, PUNE BEFORE SHRI S.S.GODARA, JM AND SHRI DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM आयकर अपीऱ सं. / ITA No.334/PUN/2020 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Bhima Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd., A/p. Madhukarnagar, Patas , Tal.-Daund, Dist – Pune - 412219 PAN : AAATB1781B .......अपऩलधथी / Appellant बनधम / V/s. DCIT, Circle 1(1), Pune ......प्रत्यथी / Respondent Assessee by : None Revenue by : Shri Arvind Desai सपनवधई की तधरऩख / Date of Hearing : 20.06.2022 घोषणध की तधरऩख / Date of Pronouncement : 04.08.2022 आदेश / ORDER PER S. S. GODARA, JM : 1. This assessee’s appeal for A.Y. 2009-10 is directed against the CIT(A)-1, Pune’s order dated 28/08/2019 passed in case No. PN/CIT(A)-1/DCIT, Cir.1(1)/PN/936/17-18 involving proceedings u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short "the Act”. Case called twice. None appears at assessee’s behest. It is accordingly proceeded ex-parte. 2 ITA No.334/PUN/2020 A.Y. : 2009-10 Bhima Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd., 2. The assessee raises the following twin substantive grounds in the instant appeal. “1. On the fact and in the circumstance of the case and in law of the learned Commissioner of the Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Pune has erred in disallowing and adding back an amount of Rs.58,75,48,941.70/- on account of Excess Sugarcane Price paid to members. 2. On the fact and in the circumstance of the case and in law of the learned Commissioner of the Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Pune has erred in disallowing and adding back an amount of Rs.2,67,97,970/- on account of Sale of Sugar to its Members on concessional rate.” 3. It emerges at the outset that the assessee’s both the foregoing substantive grounds are no more res-integra as this tribunal’s co-ordinate bench’s order in ITA 308/pun/18 Majalgaon Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. v/s ACIT dated 14.03.2019 has restored the same back to the Assessing Officer as under:- “5. We have heard both the sides and gone through the relevant material on record. There is consensus ad idem between the rival parties that the issue of payment of excessive price on purchase of sugarcane by the assesses is no more res integra in view of the recent judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT Vs. Tasgaon Taluka S.S.K. Ltd. (2019) 103 taxmann.com 57 (SC). The Hon’ble Apex Court, vide its judgment dated 05-03-2019, has elaborately dealt with this issue. It recorded the factual matrix that the assessee in that case purchased and crushed sugarcane and paid price for the purchase during crushing seasons 1996-97 and 1997-98, firstly, at the time of purchase of sugarcane and then, later, as per the Mantri Committee advice. It further noted that the production of 3 ITA No.334/PUN/2020 A.Y. : 2009-10 Bhima Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd., sugar is covered by the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and the Government issued Sugar Cane (Control) Order, 1966, which deals with all aspects of production of sugarcane and sales thereof including the price to be paid to the cane growers. Clause 3 of the Sugar Cane (Control) Order, 1966 authorizes the Government to fix minimum sugarcane price. In addition, the additional sugarcane price is also payable as per clause 5A of the Control Order, 1966. The AO in that case concluded that the difference between the price paid as per clause 3 of the Control Order, 1966 determined by the Central Government and the price determined by the State Government under clause 5A of the Control Order, 1966, was in the nature of `distribution of profits’ and hence not deductible as expenditure. He, therefore, made an addition for such sum paid to members as well as non-members. When the matter finally came up before the Hon’ble Apex Court, it noted that clause 5A was inserted in the year 1974 on the basis of the recommendations made by the Bhargava Commission, which recommended payment of additional price at the end of the season on 50:50 profit sharing basis between the growers and factories, to be worked out in accordance with the Second Schedule to the Control Order, 1966. Their Lordships noted that at the time when additional purchase price is determined/fixed under clause 5A, the accounts are settled and the particulars are provided by the concerned Co- operative Society as to what will be the expenditure and what will be the profit etc. Considering the fact that Statutory Minimum Price (SMP), determined under clause 3 of the Control Order, 1966, which is paid at the beginning of the season, is deductible in the entirety and the difference between SMP determined under clause 3 and SAP/additional purchase price determined under clause 5A, has an element of distribution of profit which cannot be allowed as deduction, the Hon’ble Supreme Court remitted the matter to the file of the AO for considering the modalities and manner in which SAP/additional purchase price/final price is decided. He has been directed to carry out an exercise of considering accounts/balance sheet and the material supplied to the State Government for the purpose of deciding/fixing the final price/additional 4 ITA No.334/PUN/2020 A.Y. : 2009-10 Bhima Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd., purchase price/SAP under clause 5A of the Control Order, 1966 and thereafter determine as to what amount would form part of the distribution of profit and the other as deductible expenditure. The relevant findings of the Hon’ble Apex Court are reproduced as under:- “9.4. ..... Therefore, to the extent of the component of profit which will be a part of the final determination of SAP and/or the final price/additional purchase price fixed under Clause 5A would certainly be and/or said to be an appropriation of profit. However, at the same time, the entire/whole amount of difference between the SMP and the SAP per se cannot be said to be an appropriation of profit. As observed hereinabove, only that part/component of profit, while determining the final price worked out/SAP/additional purchase price would be and/or can be said to be an appropriation of profit and for that an exercise is to be done by the assessing officer by calling upon the assessee to produce the statement of accounts, balance sheet and the material supplied to the State Government for the purpose of deciding/fixing the final price/additional purchase price/SAP under Clause 5A of the Control Order, 1966. Merely because the higher price is paid to both, members and non- members, qua the members, still the question would remain with respect to the distribution of profit/sharing of the profit. So far as the non-members are concerned, the same can be dealt with and/or considered applying Section 40A (2) of the Act, i.e., the assessing officer on the material on record has to determine whether the amount paid is excessive or unreasonable or not........ 9.5 Therefore, the assessing officer will have to take into account the manner in which the business works, the modalities and manner in which SAP/additional purchase price/final price are decided and to determine what amount would form part of the profit and after undertaking such an 5 ITA No.334/PUN/2020 A.Y. : 2009-10 Bhima Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd., exercise whatever is the profit component is to be considered as sharing of profit/distribution of profit and the rest of the amount is to be considered as deductible as expenditure.” 6. Both the sides are unanimously agreeable that the extant issue of deduction for payment of excessive price for purchase of sugarcane, raised in most of the appeals under consideration, is squarely covered by the aforesaid judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Respectfully following the precedent, we set-aside the impugned orders on this score and remit the matter to the file of the respective A.Os. for deciding it afresh as per law in consonance with the articulation of law by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforenoted judgment. The AO would allow deduction for the price paid under clause 3 of the Sugar Cane (Control) Order, 1966 and then determine the component of distribution of profit embedded in the price paid under clause 5A, by considering the statement of accounts, balance sheet and other relevant material supplied to the State Government for the purpose of deciding/fixing the final price/additional purchase price/SAP under this clause. The amount relatable to the profit component or sharing of profit/distribution of profit paid by the assessee, which would be appropriation of income, will not be allowed as deduction, while the remaining amount, being a charge against the income, will be considered as deductible expenditure. At this stage, it is made clear that the distribution of profits can only be qua the payments made to the members. In so far as the non-members are concerned, the case will be considered afresh by the AO by applying the provisions of section 40A(2) of the Act, as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court supra. Needless to say, the assessee will be allowed a reasonable opportunity of hearing by the AO in such fresh determination of the issue.” 4. The factual position is no different qua the latter substantive issue of assessee’s sale of sugar to its members at concessional rates wherein there is 6 ITA No.334/PUN/2020 A.Y. : 2009-10 Bhima Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd., yet another co-ordinate bench of the tribunal in ITA No. 668/pun/2014 Shivajirao Nilangekar Patil SSK Ltd. Vs DCIT dated 16.09.2019 has restored the same back to the Assessing Officer as follows. “8. The second ground is against the confirmation of disallowance of Rs.36,294/- on account of sugar sold to members at concessional price. 9. Having heard both the sides and gone through the relevant material on record, it is observed that the AO made addition of the difference between the market price and the concessional price at which sugar (final product) was given to farmers and cane growers. In this regard, it is observed that this issue has been considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Krishna Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Limited (2012) 27 taxmann.com 162 (SC). Vide judgment dated 25-09-2012, the Hon'ble Supreme Court noticed that the difference between the average price of sugar sold in the market and the price of sugar sold by the assessee to its members at ITA No.668/PUN/2014 Shivajirao Nilangekar Patil Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd., concessional rate was taxed by the Department under the head "Appropriation of profit". The Hon'ble Summit Court remitted the matter to the CIT(A) for considering, inter alia,: "whether the abovementioned practice of selling sugar at concessional rate has become the practice or custom in the Co-operative sugar industry?; and whether any Resolution has been passed by the State Government supporting the practice?; The CIT(A) would also consider on what basis the quantity of the final product, i.e. sugar, is being fixed for sale to farmers/cane growers/Members each year on month-to-month basis, apart from others from Diwali?" The issue under consideration can be decided by an appropriate lower authority only on the touchstone of the relevant factors noted in the above judgment. In our considered opinion, it would be just and fair if the impugned order on this score is set aside and the matter is restored to the file of AO, instead of to the CIT(A), for fresh consideration as to whether the difference between the average price of sugar sold in the market and that sold to members at 7 ITA No.334/PUN/2020 A.Y. : 2009-10 Bhima Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd., concessional rate is appropriation of profit or not, in the light of the directions given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Krishna Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Limited (supra). Restoration to the AO ITA No.668/PUN/2014 Shivajirao Nilangekar Patil Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd., is necessitated because, following the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Tasgaon Taluka S.S.K. Ltd. (supra), we have remitted the issue of payment of excessive price to the file of AO, and as such, the instant issue cannot be sent to ld. CIT(A) as it would amount to simultaneously sending one part of the same assessment order to the AO and other to the CIT(A), which is not appropriate. We order accordingly.” 5. Mr. Desai could hardly pin point any distinction in law and on facts qua both these issues. We thus adopt the very course of action herein as well and direct the learned assessing authority to re-adjudicate the same afresh as per law. Ordered accordingly. 6. Delay of 2 days in filing of the instant appeal is condoned since falling in Covid-19 pandemic outbreak period. 7. This assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms. Order pronounced in the Open Court on this 4 th day of August, 2022. Sd/- Sd/- (DR.DIPAK P.RIPOTE) (S.S. GODARA) लेखध सदस्य/ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER न्यधनयक सदस्य/JUDICIAL MEMBER पपणे / Pune; ददनधांक / Dated : 4 th August, 2022. Ashwini 8 ITA No.334/PUN/2020 A.Y. : 2009-10 Bhima Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd., आदेश की प्रनतनलनप अग्रेनषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपऩलधथी / The Appellant. 2. प्रत्यथी / The Respondent. 3. The CIT(A)-1, Pune. 4. The Pr.CIT-1, Pune. 5. नवभधगऩय प्रनतनननध, आयकर अपऩलऩय अनधकरण, “ए” बेंच, पपणे / DR, ITAT, “A” Bench, Pune. 6. गधर्ा फ़धइल / Guard File. आदेशधनपसधर / BY ORDER, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपऩलऩय अनधकरण, पपणे / ITAT, Pune. 9 ITA No.334/PUN/2020 A.Y. : 2009-10 Bhima Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd., S.No. Details Date Initials 1 Draft dictated on 20.06.2022 2 Draft placed before author 01.08.2022 3 Draft proposed & placed before the Second Member 4 Draft discussed/approved by Second Member 5 Approved Draft comes to the Sr. PS/PS 6 Kept for pronouncement on 7 Date of uploading of Order 8 File sent to Bench Clerk 9 Date on which the file goes to the Head Clerk 10 Date on which file goes to the A.R. 11 Date of Dispatch of order