M/s. U.P.State Sugar & Cane Development Corporation Ltd., Lucknow V. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Lucknow

ITA 477/LKW/2013

• Counselvise Citation: 47723714 RSA 2013
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 1 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-08-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 02-07-2014
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 01-07-2013
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Depreciation; Commercial expediency
• Section: 43B

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH A, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NOS.477 TO 479/LKW/2013 ASSESSMENT YEARS:2005 - 06 TO 2007 - 08 & I.T.A. NO.582/LKW/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR :2008 - 09 U.P. STATE SUGAR & CANE DEVELOPMENT CORPN. LTD., VIPIN KHAND, GOMTI NAGAR, LUCKNOW. PAN:AAACU5951D VS. ADDL. C.I.T., RANGE - II, LUCKNOW. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) I.T.A. NO.583/LKW/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR :2008 - 09 U.P. STATE SUGAR CORPN. LTD., VIPIN KHAND, GOMTI NAGAR, LUCKNOW. PAN:AAACU3394U VS. A.C.I.T., RANGE - VI, LUCKNOW. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) I.T.A. NOS.253 & 113/LKW/2013 ASSESSMENT YEARS:2006 - 07 & 2009 - 10 INCOME TAX OFFICER - 6(2), LUCKNOW. VS. U.P. STATE SUGAR & CANE DEVELOPMENT CORPN. LTD., VIPIN KHAND, GOMTI NAGAR, LUCKNOW. PAN:AAACU5951D (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY SHRI ABHINAV MEHROTRA, ADVOCATE SHRI SAMRAT CHANDRA, C.A. REVENUE BY SHRI MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, CIT, D.R. DATE OF HEARING 02 /0 7 /2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 2 1 /0 8 /2014 2 O R D E R PER BENCH : IN THESE SEVEN APPEALS, TOTAL SEVEN ISSUES ARE INVOLVED AND IT WAS AGREED BY BOTH SIDES THAT ALL THESE APPEALS CAN BE DISPOSED OF ON ISSUE BASIS. HENCE, WE DISPOSE OF THESE APPEALS BY WAY OF OUR DECISION ON EACH ISSUE. 2. THE FIRST ISSUE IS REGARDING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE BASIS OF PRESUMPTIVE YIELD. THIS ISSUE IS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005 - 06, 2006 - 07, 2007 - 08 AND 2008 - 09 I.E. ITA NOS.477 TO 479/LKW/2013 & 5 82/LKW/2012 AS PER GROUND NO. 1 IN ALL THESE YEARS. 3. LEARNED A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SAME CONTENTIONS WHICH WERE RAISED BEFORE THE CIT(A). 4. LEARNED D.R. OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A). 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FIND THAT IT IS NOTED BY CIT(A) IN PARA 5.1 OF HIS ORDER FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005 - 06 THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS WHICH ARE PLACED ON RECORD. HE HAS ALSO NOTED THAT IT IS STATED THEREIN THAT THE PRODUCTION DEPENDS UPON QUALITY OF CANE, CONDITION OF PLANT AND MACHINERY AND OTHER FACTORS. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE PLANTS WERE OLD AND THEREAFTER SOLD OUT TO THE STATE GOVERNMENT. BOTH THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE GIVEN A FINDING THAT WHEN THE ACTUAL YIELD SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE IS COMPARE D WITH THE YIELD AS PER THE CHEMIST REPORT, IT IS SEEN THAT THE YIELD OF BY - PRODUCT S I.E. MOLASSES, BAGASSE AND PRESS MUD SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE IS TALLYING WITH THE CHEMIST REPORT. UNDER THESE FACTS, THIS IS THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT WH EN THE YIELD OF BY - PRODUCTS ARE TALLYING WITH THE NORMS OF THE 3 CHEMIST THEN HOW THE SAME SHOULD DIFFER IN THE CASE OF RECOVERY OF SUGAR. THIS FINDING IS ALSO GIVEN BY CIT(A) THAT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE NOT RELIABLE. THESE FAC TS ARE VERY IMPORTANT THAT THE BOOKS ARE NOT RELIABLE, DIFFERENT FIGURES OF PRODUCTION, STOCK AND SALES ARE BEING SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND THE YIELD SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE ARE COMPARABLE IN RESPECT OF BY - PRODUCTS I.E. MOLASSES, BAGASSE AND PRESS MUD BUT THE YIELD OF SUGAR SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE IS MUCH BELOW THE YIELD AS PER CHEMIST REPORT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ALSO NOTED THE YIELD OF SUGAR OBTAINED FROM GOVERNMENT REPORT AND AS PER THE SAME , YIELD OF SUGAR CORPORATION IS 9.10%, YIELD OF COOPERATIVE IS 9.20% AND YIELD OF PRIVATE SUGAR FACTORIES IS 9.90%. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TAKEN THE L OWEST FIGURE I.E. 9.1% WHICH IS WITHIN THE RANGE OF CHEMIST REPORT REPORTED AT 8% TO 10%. CONSIDERING ALL THESE FACTS, IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, NO INTERFERENCE IS CALLED FOR IN THE ORDER OF CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE. ACCORDINGLY, THIS ISSUE IS DECIDED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE IN ALL THESE YEARS I.E. ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005 - 06, 2006 - 07, 2007 - 08 AND 2008 - 09. 6. THE SECOND ISSUE IS REGARDING DISALLOWANCE OF CANE DEVELOPMENT EXPENSES. T HIS ISSUE HAS BEEN RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE AS PER GROUND NO. 4, 5 & 6 IN I.T.A. NO.477 AND GROUND NO. 2 IN I.T.A. NO.479 AND 582 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 - 08, 2008 - 09 AND AS PER GROUN D NO. 1 IN I.T.A. NO.583 & 85. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY LEARNED A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE THAT IN I.T.A. NO.479/LKW/2011, THE TRIBUNAL HAS RESTORED THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH THE DIRECTION TO READJUDICATE THE ISSUE AFRESH AFTER MAKING NECESSARY VERIFICATION WITH REGARD TO THE NATURE OF EXPENSES INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS HELD BY THE TRIBUNAL THAT IF THE EXPENSES ARE INCURRED FOR COMMERCIAL EXPEDIENCY, THE SAME MAY BE 4 ALLOWED. THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL I.E. I.T.A. NO.477/LKW/201 3 IS AVAILABLE ON PAGE NO. 70 TO 72 OF THE PAPER BOOK. 7. LEARNED D.R. OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A). 8. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FIND THAT IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003 - 04 IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE, THE MATTER WAS REST ORED BACK BY THE TRIBUNAL TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR FRESH DECISION AFTER NECESSARY VERIFICATION REGARDING NATURE OF EXPENSES AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS DIRECTED THAT IF IT IS FOUND THAT THE EXPENSES ARE INCURRED FOR COMMERCIAL EXPEDIENCY THEN THE SAM E MAY BE ALLOWED. ACCORDINGLY, IN THE PRESENT YEAR S ALSO, THIS ISSUE IS RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR FRESH DECISION AFTER VERIFYING THE NATURE OF EXPENSES INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE AND IF IT IS FOUND THAT THE EXPENSES ARE INCURRED FOR COMMERCIAL EXPEDIENCY, THE SAME MAY BE ALLOWED. 9. THE THIRD ISSUE IS REGARDING ALLOWABILITY OF EXPENSES U/S 43B OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF EMPLOYEES CONTRIBUTION TO PF. THIS ISSUE HAS BEEN RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE AS PER GROUND NO. 1 IN I.T.A. NO.353, 114 AND 113. IT IS SUBMITTED BY LEARNED A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THIS ISSUE IS COVERED BY THE TRIBUNAL DECISION RENDERED IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS. INDIAN FARMER FERTILISERS COOP. LTD. IN I.T.A. NO.3350/DEL/2009 AND 1194/DEL/2011 DATED 31/05/2011. HE ALSO SUBM ITTED THAT THE COPY OF THE ORDER IS AVAILABLE ON PAGE NO. 17 TO 22 OF THE PAPER BOOK IN I.T.A. NO.114/LKW/2013 . 10. AS AGAINST THIS, LEARNED D.R. OF THE REVENUE SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF PAYMENT AND THEREFORE, DEDUCTION IS NOT ALLOWABLE. IN THE REJOINDER, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY LEARNED A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE MATTER MAY BE SENT BACK TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR VERIFICATION OF PAYMENT. 5 11. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FIND THAT IT IS NOTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PROVE AND EXPLAIN THE PAYMENT OF EMPLOYEES CONTRIBUTION TO RESPECTIVE FUND ACCOUNT WITHIN THE TIME AND THEREFORE, HE MADE THE ADDITION U/S 2 ( 24 ) (X ) READ WITH SECTION 36(1)(V) OF THE ACT. IN THE LIGHT OF THE SE FACTS, WE EXAMINE THE APPLICABILITY OF THE TRIBUNAL DECISION. THE RELEVANT PARA S OF THE TRIBUNAL DECISION ARE PARA NO. 2 TO 5, WHICH ARE REPRODUCED BELOW FOR THE SAKE OF READY REFERENCE: 2. THE FIRST ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION RELATES TO DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS 13,03,74.047/ - MADE U/S 43B OF THE ACT. THE FACTS OF THE CASE STALED IN BRIEF ARC THAT THE AO FROM TAX AUDIT REPORT FOUND THAT A SUM OF RS.23,98,96,527/ - HAS BEEN SHOWN PAYAHLC AS ON 31.3.06. THE TAX AUDIT REPORT ALSO STATED THAT A SUM OF RS .13,03,74,047/ ON ACCOUNT OF PAYMENTS OF THESE LIABILITIES HAD BEEN ADDED BACK AND THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS.10,95,22,480/ - . THE ASSES SEE WAS REQUIRED TO PRODUCE EVIDENCE FOR PAYMENT OF LIABILITIES. HOWEVER, SINCE ASSES SEE DID NOT FILE ANY EVIDENCE, HE DI SALLOWED THE AMOUNT OF RS.13,03,74,047/ - U/S 43B OF THE ACT. 3. ON APPEAL, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE STATUTORY DUES PAYABLE ON 31.3.2006 AT RS.13,03,74,047/ - WERE PAID BEFORE FURNISHING/FILING OF INCOME - TAX RETURN TOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006 - 07. THE AMOUNT A S WELL AS SUBSEQUENT DATES OF DEPOSITS OF THESE PAYMENTS HAVE BEEN VERIFIED AND CERTIFIED BY THE TAX AUDITORS. THE CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION ON THE GROUND THAT AO WAS REQUIRED TO ALLOW THE DEDUCTION U/S 43K ON THE BASIS OF VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION OF TAX AUDITORS AS FILED IN FORM 3CD ALONG WITH THE RETURN OF INCOME. 4. BEFORE US, LD. CIT(DR) SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE AO. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE C1T(A). 5. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES. THE ASSESSEE IS A MULTI STATE COOPERATIVE SOCIETY HAVING ITS SALES OFFICE SPREAD ALL OVER INDIA AND ITS ACCOUNTS ARC DECENTRALIZED. THE TAX AUDIT REPORT IN FORM 3CD IS COMPILED ON THE BASIS OF TAX AUDIT REPORTS 6 RECEIVED FROM VARIOUS BRANCH AUDITORS IN FORM 3CD. ON IDENTI CAL ISSUE, FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004 - 05, THE AO DISALLOWED THE PAYMENT U/S 43 B, BUT THE SAME WAS ALLOWED BY THE C1T(A) ON THE GROUND THAT THE DATES OF DEPOSITS HAVE BEEN VERIFIED AND CERTIFIED BY THE TAX AUDITORS OF THE ASSES SEE AND THE CERTIFICATE OF TAX AUDITORS WAS ALREADY AVAILABLE WITH THE AO. THE IT AT VIDE ORDER DATED 16.1.2009 UPHELD THE ORDER OF CIT(A). WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ORDER FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004 - 05 IN I.T.A. NO.244/DEL./08 DATED 16.1.2009 IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE. IT AT, DELHI BENCH 'D' HAS ALLOWED THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY HOLDING THAT THE PAYMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE BEFORE DUE DATE FOR FILING OF RETURN OF INCOME. THE CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITION. FROM THE TAX AUDIT REPORT, WE ALSO FIND THAT AMOUNT OF RS.13,03. 74,047/ - HAS BEEN SHOWN AS PAID ON OR BEFORE DUE DATE FOR FURNISHING RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE PREVIOUS YEAR U/S 139(1) OF THE ACT. FORM 3CD HAS BEEN PREPARED AND SIGNED BY RAJNISH & ASSOCIATES, CA. THE ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE HAVE BEEN AUDITED BY STATUTOR Y AUDITORS. THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED THE DETAILS OF PAYMENT OF RS.13,03,74,047/ - . THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED FOR DEDUCTION U/S 43B OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF AMOUNT OF RS.13,03,74,047/ - . ACCORDINGLY, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT (A) DELETING THE ADDITION MADE U/S 43B OF THE ACT. 11.1 FROM THE ABOVE PARA S OF THE TRIBUNAL ORDER, WE FIND THAT THIS TRIBUNAL DECISION IS REGARDING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 43B OF THE ACT WHEREAS IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE ADDITION W AS MADE U/S 2 ( 24 ) ( X ) READ WITH SECTION 36(1)(V) OF THE ACT. HENCE, THIS TRIBUNAL DECISION IS NOT APPLICABLE IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT ISSUE. SINCE THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT ESTABLISH THAT THE EMPLOYEES CONTRIBUTION TO P F WAS PAID WITHIN THE STATUTORY T IME ALLOWED UNDER P F ACT, DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS JUSTIFIED AND HENCE, THIS ISSUE IS DECIDED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE IN ALL THE THREE APPEALS. 12. THE NEXT ISSUE IS REGARDING DEPRECIATION ON TUBEWELLS AND PIPELINES. THIS ISSUE HAS BEE N RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE AS PER GROUND NO. 2 IN I.T.A. NO.477/LKW/2013. 7 13. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY LEARNED A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THIS ISSUE IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE TRIBUNAL DECISION IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005 - 06 IN I.T.A. NO.601/LKW/2012 DATED 23/12/2013. HE SUBMITTED COPY OF THIS TRIBUNAL ORDER. LEARNED D.R. OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A). 14. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FIND THAT IN THE CASE OF U.P. SUGAR CORPORATION LIM ITED IN I.T.A. NO.601/LKW/2012 DATED 22/12/2013, IT WAS HELD BY THE TRIBUNAL THAT THE WATER PLAYS A VITAL ROLE IN MANUFACTURING OF SUGAR AND THEREFORE, THE TUBEWELL AND PIPELINES FOR SUPPLYING WATER TO THE FACTORY HAS TO BE TREATED AS PLANT & MACHINERY AND DEPRECIATION IS ALLOWABLE THEREON AT THE RATE PRESCRIBED FOR PLANT & MACHINERY. WHILE HOLDING SO, THE TRIBUNAL HAS FOLLOWED ANOTHER TRIBUNAL DECISION RENDERED IN THE CASE OF DCIT VS. SATNAM PAPER MILLS (P.) LTD. AS REPORTED IN [2001] 77 ITD 267 (DELHI). RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THIS TRIBUNAL DECISION, THIS ISSUE IS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE IN I.T.A. NO.477/LKW/2013. 15. THE NEXT ISSUE IS REGARDING DISALLOWA NCE OF PRIOR PERIOD EXPENSES. T HIS ISSUE HAS BEEN RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE AS PER GROUND NO. 3 IN I.T.A. NO.477/LKW/2013. 16. LEARNED A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SAME CONTENTIONS WHICH WERE RAISED BEFORE THE CIT(A). 17. AS AGAINST THIS, LEARNED D.R. OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A). 18. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FIND THAT A CLEAR FINDING IS GIVEN BY THE CIT(A) IN PARA 7.1 OF HIS ORDER THAT NOTHING HAS BEEN 8 BROUGHT ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT THESE LIABILITIES FOR EXPENSES WERE CRYSTALLIZED DURING THIS YEAR. THIS FINDING OF CIT(A) COULD NOT BE CONTROVE RTED BY LEARNED A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE AND HENCE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE IN THE ORDER OF CIT(A). T HIS ISSUE IS DECIDED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE IN I.T.A. NO.477/LKW/2013. 19. THE NEXT ISSUE IS REGARDING DISALLOWANCE OF MOLASSES STORAGE FACILITY RESERVE. THIS ISSUE HAS BEEN RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE AS PER GROUND NO. 2 IN I.T.A. NO.113/LKW/2013. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY LEARNED A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THIS ISSUE IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE TRIBUNAL DECISION IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR A SSESSMENT YEAR 2005 - 06 IN I.T.A. NO.203/LKW /09 DATED 28/02/2011. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE COPY IS AVAILABLE ON PAGE NO. 17 TO 38 OF THE PAPER BOOK. HE POINTED OUT THAT IN THIS TRIBUNAL DECISION, THE TRIBUNAL HAS FOLLOWED THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE ALLAHABAD HI GH COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF SIMBHOLI SUGAR MILLS LIMITED VS. CIT IN I.T.R. NO. 4 OF 1985 DATED 20/09/2005. HE ALSO POINTED OUT THAT IN THIS JUDGMENT, THE HON'BLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT HAS FOLLOWED THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE APEX COURT RENDERED IN THE CAS E OF LAMSHMI SUGAR MILLS CO. PVT. LTD. VS. CIT 1[1971] 82 ITR 376. 20. ON THE OTHER HAND, LEARNED D.R. OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A). 21. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. SINCE THE ISSUE IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE TRIBUNAL DECISION CITED BY THE ASSESSEE IN WHICH THE TRIBUNAL HAS FOLLOWED THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT WHO IN TURN HAS FOLLOWED THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE APEX COURT , W E DELETE THIS ADDITION BY RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THESE JUD GMENTS. GROUND NO. 2 OF I.T.A. NO.113/LKW/2013 IS ALLOWED. 9 22. THE LAST ISSUE IS REGARDING INCOME FROM NURSERY. THIS ISSUE HAS BEEN RAISED BY WAY OF GROUND NO. 5 IN I.T.A. NO.477/LKW/2013. 23. LEARNED A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SAME ARGUMENTS W HICH WERE RAISED BEFORE THE CIT(A). 24. LEARNED D.R. OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF CIT(A). 25. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FIND THAT IN PARA 9.1 OF HIS ORDER, IT IS STATED BY CIT(A) THAT THIS ISSUE HAS BEEN DECIDED AGAINST THE ASS ESSEE BY THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ORDER DATED 28/02/2011 IN THE CASE OF U.P. STATE SUGAR CORPORATION LTD. VS. ADDL. CIT IN I.T.A. NO.203/LKW/2009 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005 - 06. THE CIT(A) HAS CONFIRMED THIS ADDITION BY FOLLOWING THIS TRIBUNAL DECISION. SINCE THE ORDER OF CIT(A) IS IN LINE WITH THE TRIBUNAL DECISION, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF CIT(A). THIS ISSUE IS DECIDED AGAINST THE ASS ESSEE . 26. IN THE RESULT, THE ISSUE OF PRESUMPTIVE YIELD IS DECIDED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE, THE ISSUE OF CANE DE VELOPMENT EXPENSES IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES, THE ISSUE OF ALLOWABILITY OF EXPENSES U/S 43B IS DECIDED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE, THE ISSUE OF DEPRECIATION ON TUBEWELL AND PIPELINES IS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE, THE ISSUE OF PRIOR PERIOD EXPEN SES IS DECIDED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE, THE ISSUE OF MOLASSES STORAGE FACILITY RESERVE IS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE ISSUE OF INCOME FROM NURSERY IS DECIDED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. (ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONED ON THE CAPTION PAGE) SD/. SD/. (SUNIL KUMAR YADAV) ( A. K. GARODIA ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 2 1 /0 8 /2014. *C.L.SINGH 10 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. CONCERNED CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. D.R., I.T.A.T., LUCKNOW ASSTT. REGISTRAR