DCIT, Jaipur V. RAJASTHAN STATE SEEDS CORPORATION LTD., Jaipur

ITA 874/JPR/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5580 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-01-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 22-12-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ROLLY AGARWAL
• Assessee Lawyers: P C PARWAL CA DHK
• Keywords: Business expenditure
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, JAIPUR JH VH-VKJ-EHUK] YS[KK LNL; ,OA JH YFYR DQEKJ] U;KF; D LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI T.R.MEENA, AM & SHRI LALIET KUMAR, JM VK;DJ VIHY LA-@ ITA NOS. 874/JP/2014 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z@ ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2011-12 . THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR. CUKE VS. M/S. RAJASTHAN STATE SEEDS CORPORATION LTD., 3 RD FLOOR, PANT KRISHI BHAWAN, JAIPUR. LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO. AAACR 88882 Q VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT JKTLO DH VKSJ LS@ REVENUE BY : SMT. ROLLY AGARWAL, (CIT) FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ LS@ ASSESSEE BY S BY : SHRI P.C. PARWAL, (C.A.) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF HEARING : 15.12.2015. ?KKS'K .KK DH RKJH[K @ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 01/01/2016. VKNS'K@ ORDER PER SHRI LALIET KUMAR, J.M. THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS ARISING FROM TH E ORDER DATED 1010.214 PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIT (A)-II, JAIPUR FOR THE A.Y. 2011 -12. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL :- (1) WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF TH E CASE AND IN LAW THE LD. CIT (APPEALS) WAS JUSTIFIED IN HOLDING THAT CON TRIBUTION OF RS. 15,16,912/- TO STATE RENEWAL FUND AS ALLOWABLE EXPE NDITURE THOUGH IT IS NOT ACTUAL EXPENDITURE. 2 ITA NO. 874/JP/2014 A.Y. 2011-12. DCIT VS. RAJASTHAN STATE SEEDS CORPN. JAIPUR. (2) WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF TH E CASE AND IN LAW THE LD. CIT (APPEALS) WAS JUSTIFIED IN ALLOWING DEDUCTI ON FOR THE CONTRIBUTION OF RS. 43,41,949/- MADE TO AN UNAPPROVED GRATUITY FUND . (3) WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF TH E CASE AND IN LAW THE LD. CIT (APPEALS) WAS JUSTIFIED IN HOLDING PRIOR PE RIOD EXPENSES AS ALLOWABLE EXPENSE EVEN WHEN IT IS NOT IN ABIDANCE O F THE ACCOUNTING POLICIES FOLLOWED BY THE ASSESSEE. 2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE CO MPANY DERIVES INCOME FROM PROCUREMENT, PROCESSING AND TRADING OF SEEDS AND AL SO FROM TRADING OF TRACTORS. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME DECLARI NG TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 8,01,87,990/- FOR THE A.Y. 2011-12 ON 27.09.2011. THE CASE WAS SC RUTINIZED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE IT ACT. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEED INGS, THE AO GONE THROUGH THE VARIOUS DETAILS INCLUDING JUDGMENTS PASSED BY THE H ONBLE SUPREME COURT, HONBLE HIGH COURT AND THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL FOR THE EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEARS. THE AO AFTER NOTICING THE EARLIER ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIB UNAL IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE HAS ADDED THE CONTRIBUTION OF RS 15,16,912/- TO THE TOT AL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE BY OBSERVING AT PAGE 4 OF HIS ORDER AS UNDER : IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING DISCUSSION AND APPLYING THE RATIO OF THESE JUDGMENTS INCLUDING JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT AND C ONSIDERING FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, TRANSFER OF RS. 20,00,00 0/- TO STATE RENEWAL FUND IS HELD AS NOT ALLOWABLE EXPENDITURE AND HELD AS APPLICATION OF INCOME AND THE SAME IS ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. IT IS ALSO NOTICED THAT SOME OTHER CORPORATIONS HAVE ALSO MADE CONTRIBUTION TO STATE RENEWAL FUND BUT THE SAME HAS BEEN TREATED AS DISALLOWABLE EXPENDITURE. THE MATTER IS ALSO PENDING BEFORE APPE LLATE AUTHORITIES AND HAS NOT ATTAINED FINALITY. HAVING REGARD TO THESE F ACTS, THE CONTRIBUTION OF 3 ITA NO. 874/JP/2014 A.Y. 2011-12. DCIT VS. RAJASTHAN STATE SEEDS CORPN. JAIPUR. RS. 15,16,912/- IS HELD AS NOT ALLOWABLE AND THE SA ME IS ADDED TO ASSESSEES TOTAL INCOME. 3. ON APPEAL FILED BEFORE LD. CIT (A), THE LD. CIT (A) ALLOWED THE GROUND OF THE ASSESSEE BY OBSERVING AS UNDER :- 2.3.1. I HAVE PERUSED THE FACTS OF THE CASE, THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT. THE FACTS OF THIS ISSUE ARE SIMILAR TO THE FACTS IN THE PRECEDING YEAR. IN A.Y. 2006-07 IN THE ASSESSEES CASE, THE ITAT, JAIPUR (IN ITA NO. 233/JP/2009) HAS DECID ED THE MATTER IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY HOLDING AS UNDER :- AS PER THE MEMORANDUM OF STATE RENEWAL FUND SET U P BY THE STATE GOVERNMENT, IT IS CREATED WITH THE OBJECT OF PROVIDING A SAFETY NET FOR THE WORKERS LIKELY TO BE AFFECTED BY RESTRUCTURING IN THE STATE PUBLIC ENTERPRISES. WE ARE THUS OF THE VIE W THAT CONTRIBUTION MADE TO THE SAID FUND IS SOLELY FOR TH E PURPOSE OF THE WELFARE AND BENEFIT OF THE EMPLOYEES. THE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT IN CASE OF CIT V. RAJASTHAN SPINNING AND WEAVING MILLS LIMITED 274 ITR 465 HAS OBSERVED THAT IT IS FOR THE ASSESSEE TO DECIDE WHETHER ANY EXPENDITURE SHOULD BE INCURRED IN COURSE OF BUS INESS. THE EXPENDITURE CAN BE INCURRED VOLUNTARILY AND WITHOUT NECESSITY. ANY CONTRIBUTION MADE BY THE ASSESSEE TO A PUBLIC WELFA RE FUND WHICH IS CONNECTED OR RELATED WITH HIS BUSINESS IS AN ALLOW ABLE DEDUCTION U/S 37. AGAIN THE COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. SHRI RAJASTHAN SYNTEX LIMITED 221 CTR 410 (RAJ.) HELD THAT WHERE ASSESSEE GAVE CONTRIBUTION TO THE EMPLOYEES WELFARE FUND, THE SA ME IS ALLOWABLE AS BUSINESS EXPENDITURE. THE CASE RELIED BY AO OF C IT V. JODHPUR CO-OPERATIVE MARKETING SOCIETY 275 ITR 372 (RAJ.) I S DISTINGUISHABLE AS IN THIS CASE THE AMOUNT WAS SET APART FOR THE SHAREHOLDERS OF THE SOCIETY WHEREAS IN THE PRESENT CASE AMOUNT WAS PROVIDED FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE EMPLOYEES. IN V IEW OF THIS THE CONTRIBUTION MADE TO STATE RENEWAL FUND IS ALLOWABL E U/S 37(1). 2.3.2. IN A.Y. 2009-10, THE CIT (A)-II, JAIPUR (APP EAL NO. 475/11/-12) HAS ALSO DECIDED THE MATTER IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE B Y FOLLOWING THE ABOVE 4 ITA NO. 874/JP/2014 A.Y. 2011-12. DCIT VS. RAJASTHAN STATE SEEDS CORPN. JAIPUR. ORDER OF THE ITAT. FOLLOWING THE ABOVE JUDGMENTS, T HE DISALLOWANCE ON ACCOUNT OF CONTRIBUTION MADE TO STATE RENEWAL FUND OF RS. 15,16,912/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO BE DEL ETED. THIS GROUND IS ALLOWED. 4. NOW THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. THE LD. D/R HAS VEHEMENTLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE LD. A/R OF THE ASSESSEE HAS REITERATED THE ARGUMENTS MADE BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A). IT IS FURTHE R SUBMITTED THAT THE STATE GOVT. HAD SET UP A STATE RENEWAL FUND IN THE YEAR 1995 WITH T HE OBJECT OF PROVIDING A SAFETY NET FOR THE WORKERS LIKELY TO BE AFFECTED BY RESTRICTIN G IN THE STATE PUBLIC ENTERPRISES, AS A RESULT OF THIS PROCESS, THESE EXPENSES HAVE BEEN CL AIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. HE FURTHER ARGUED THAT CASE LAW RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSING O FFICER I.E. CIT VS. JODHPUR CO- OPERATIVE MARKETING SOCIETY, 275 ITR 372 (RAJ.) IS DISTINGUISHABLE. HE FURTHER RELIED ON THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. RAJASTHAN SPINN ING AND WEAVING MILLS LTD. AND PRAYED TO ALLOW THE EXPENSES AS BEING COVERED BY TH E DECISION OF THE HONBLE ITAT FOR A.Y. 2006-07. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON THE RECORD. IT IS A LEGAL OBLIGATION O N THE PART OF THE COMPANY, WHICH HAS BEEN CLAIMED IN PRECEDING YEAR ALSO. THE COORDINATE BENCH IN A.Y. 2006-07, 07-08 AND 09-10 HAD ALLOWED THE APPEAL IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSES SEE. THEREFORE, WE UPHOLD THE ORDER OF LD. CIT (A). 6. IN RESPECT OF GROUND NO. 2, THE ASSESSING OFFICE R DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE BY OBSERVING AS UNDER :- 5 ITA NO. 874/JP/2014 A.Y. 2011-12. DCIT VS. RAJASTHAN STATE SEEDS CORPN. JAIPUR. 6.2. I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERATION THE SUBMISSIO NS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE, BUT THE SAME ARE NOT FOUND TENABLE. THE A SSESSEE IS CLAIMED TO HAVE APPLIED FOR APPROVAL OF THE GRATUITY SCHEME ON 31.03.1981 AND EVEN AFTER SUCH A LONG LAPSE OF TIME, THE APPROVAL HAS N OT BEEN GRANTED. SUCH APPROVAL CANNOT BE PRESUMED TO HAVE BEEN GIVEN, EXC EPT UNDER THE ACT ITSELF. THE FACT REMAINS THAT AS ON DATE, GROUP GRA TUITY SCHEME HAS NOT BEEN APPROVED WHICH IS A MANDATORY CONDITION TO MAK E THE ASSESSEE ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION OF THE AFORESAID PAYMENT OF RS. 47,31,494/-. ANY SUM PAID FOR THE GRATUITY FUND IS DEDUCTIBLE U/S 36 (1)(V), IF SUCH PAYMENT IS TOWARDS CONTRIBUTION TO APPROVED GRATUITY FUND. SECTION 40(A)(7) OF THE ACT PROVIDES THAT A PROVISION FOR GRAT5UITY WILL NO T BE ADMISSIBLE UNLESS IT IS FOR THE APPROVED GRATUITY FUND. RELIANCE IS PLAC ED ON THE CASE OF CIT VS. ELECTRA (JAIPUR) P. LTD. (2006) 282 ITR 598 (ALL.), WHERE THE HONBLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT HELD THAT THE AMOUNT PAID WA S NOTHING ELSE BUT GRATUITY AND MERELY BECAUSE THE SCHEME HAD BEEN MEN TIONED AS GRATUITY INSURANCE SCHEME IT WOULD NOT MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE. THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40A(7) OF THE ACT WOULD BE ATTRACTED AS FUN D HAD NOT BEEN RECOGNIZED BY THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT. IN VIEW O F THESE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND THE CASE LAW STATED S UPRA, PAYMENT TOWARDS UNAPPROVED GRATUITY FUND IS DISALLOWED. ACC ORDINGLY A SUM OF RS. 47,31,494/- IS DISALLOWED AND ADDED TO THE INCOME O F THE ASSESSEE. 7. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF AO, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE LD. CIT (A). THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE BY OBSERVING AS UNDER :- 3.3.1. I HAVE PERUSED THE FACTS OF THE CASE, THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT. THE FACTS OF THIS ISSUE ARE SIMILAR TO THE FACTS IN THE PRECEDING YEAR. IN A.Y. 2006-07 IN THE ASSESSEES CASE, 6 ITA NO. 874/JP/2014 A.Y. 2011-12. DCIT VS. RAJASTHAN STATE SEEDS CORPN. JAIPUR. THE ITAT, JAIPUR (IN ITA NO. 307/JP/2009) HAS DECID ED THE MATTER IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY HOLDING AS UNDER :- THE ASSESSEE HAS APPLIED FOR APPROVAL OF THE SCHE ME ON 31.3.1981. THE AO HAS NOT BROUGHT ANY MATERIAL ON R ECORD THAT THE APPROVAL TO THE SCHEME IS NOT ALLOWED. THEREFORE, T HE SCHEME CANNOT BE TAKEN AS NOT APPROVED. THE ASSESSEE CANT BE MADE TO SUFFER FOR INACTION OF THE DEPARTMENT. 3.3.2. IN A.Y. 2009-10, THE CIT (A)-II, JAIPUR (APP EAL NO. 475/11/-12) HAS ALSO DECIDED THE MATTER IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE B Y FOLLOWING THE ABOVE ORDER OF THE ITAT. FOLLOWING THE ABOVE JUDGMENTS, T HE DISALLOWANCE ON ACCOUNT OF CONTRIBUTION MADE TO LIC GROUP GRATUITY SCHEME OF RS. 43,31,494/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECT ED TO BE DELETED. THIS GROUND IS ALLOWED. 8. NOW THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. THE LD. D/R FOR THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE AO AND REQUESTED TO RESTORE THE AS SESSMENT ORDER. 9. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. A/R OF THE ASSESSEE R ELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT (A) AND PRAYED THAT ORDER OF LD. CIT (A) MAY BE CON FIRMED. 10. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE ISSUE IS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE EARLIER ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL FOR THE A.YS. 2006-07, 07-08 AND 09-10. AS THE ASSESSEE HAS APPL IED FOR APPROVAL IN TIME, BUT THE FORMAL ORDER COULD NOT BE ISSUED BY THE DEPARTMENT, THEREFORE, THERE IS NO FAULT ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE. SINCE THE ISSUE IS COVERED BY THE EARLIER ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL FOR THE A.Y. 2009-10 WHEREIN ONE OF US WAS A PARTY, THE ISSUE IS, THEREFORE, SQUARELY COVERED AND WE UPHOLD THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. C IT (A). 7 ITA NO. 874/JP/2014 A.Y. 2011-12. DCIT VS. RAJASTHAN STATE SEEDS CORPN. JAIPUR. 11. IN RESPECT OF GROUND NO. 3 ALLOWING PRIOR PERIO D EXPENSES, THE AO HAS DISALLOWED THE EXPENSES BY OBSERVING AS UNDER :- 7.2. I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE AND ON DUE CONSIDERATION, I AM NOT INCLINED TO ACCE PT THE SAME IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE IS REGULARLY FOLLOWING M ERCANTILE SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING AS IS EVIDENT FROM THE AUDIT REPORT. IN THE SIGNIFICANT POLICIES AND NOTES ON ACCOUNT ANNEXED TO THE AUDIT REPORT AS ANNEXURE 24, IT IS CLEARLY MENTIONED AS UNDER :- THE ACCOUNTS OF THE COMPANY ARE PREPARED UNDER TH E HISTORICAL COST CONVENTION USING THE ACCRUAL METHOD OF ACCOUNT ING. AS PER THE METHOD OF ACCOUNTING BEING REGULARLY FOL LOWED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE COMPANY IS REQUIRED TO ACCOUNT FOR EX PENSES IN THE YEAR IN WHICH IT IS INCURRED. IT IS NOT OPEN TO THE ASSESSE E TO CLAIM THE EXPENSES AS AND WHEN PAID. THE EXPENSES ON ACCOUNT OF OFFICE EXPENSES, MEDICAL EXPENSES, HANDLING AND TRANSPORTATION WERE INCURRED IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR. THE TRADE DISCOUNT OF RS. 32196/- ALSO PERTAINS TO THE SALES MADE IN EARLIER YEARS. SIMPLY ON THE GROUND THAT BILLS WERE RECEIVED AND APPROVED DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE ASSESSEE C ANNOT CLAIM THAT THESE EXPENSES WERE CRYSTALLIZED DURING THIS YEAR. SINCE THE ASSESSEE IS FOLLOWING MERCANTILE SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING, THE ASSE SSEE IS REQUIRED TO ACCOUNT FOR THE EXPENSES IN THE YEAR IN WHICH IT IS INCURRED IRRESPECTIVE OF THE FACT THAT THE BILLS WERE RECEIVED AND APPROVED NEXT YEAR. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS ALREADY DISALLOWED THE FARM EXPENSES O F RS. 20,000/- OUT OF THE TOTAL EXPENSES OF RS. 2,72,468/-, DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 2,52,468/- IS MADE, RESULTING IN ADDITION OF RS. 2,52,468/- TO TH E TOTAL INCOME OF ASSESSEE. 8 ITA NO. 874/JP/2014 A.Y. 2011-12. DCIT VS. RAJASTHAN STATE SEEDS CORPN. JAIPUR. 12. FEELING AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER PASSED BY AO, TH E ASSESSEE HAS PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE LD. CIT (A) AND THE LD. CIT (A) ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE BY OBSERVING AS UNDER :- 4.3.1. I HAVE PERUSED THE FACTS OF THE CASE, THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT. THE FACTS OF THIS ISSUE ARE SIMILAR TO THE FACTS IN THE PRECEDING YEAR. IN A.Y. 2006-07 IN THE ASSESSEES CASE, THE ITAT JAIPUR (IN ITA NO. 307/JP/2009) HAS DECIDE D THE MATTER IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY HOLDING AS UNDER :- FROM THE DETAILS WE NOTE THAT THE APPROVAL FOR PA YMENT OF THESE EXPENDITURE WERE GIVEN DURING THE YEAR AND THEREFOR E THE LIABILITY CRYSTALLIZED DURING THE YEAR. IN VIEW OF THESE FAC TS AND THE CONSISTENT VIEW OF THIS BENCH THAT THE LIABILITY CR YSTALLIZED ON APPROVAL OF PAYMENT, WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE OR DER OF LD. CIT (A) DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE. 4.3.2. IN A.Y. 2009-10, THE CIT (A)-II, JAIPUR (APP EAL NO. 475/11-12) HAS ALSO DECIDED THE MATTER IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE B Y FOLLOWING THE ABOVE ORDER OF THE ITAT. FOLLOWING THE ABOVE JUDGMENTS, T HE DISALLOWANCE ON ACCOUNT OF PRIOR PERIOD EXPENSES OF RS. 2,52,468/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO BE DELETED. THIS GROUND IS A LLOWED. 13. FEELING AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF LD. CIT (A), THE REVENUE IS BEFORE US. THE LD. D/R FOR THE REVENUE RELIED ON THE ORDER PASSED BY T HE AO. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. A/R FOR THE ASSESSEE RELIED ON THE ORDER OF LD. CIT (A) AND PRAYED THAT THE ORDER OF LD. CIT (A) MAY BE CONFIRMED. THE LD. A/R HAS ALSO PLAC ED RELIANCE ON THE ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL FOR THE A.Y. 2006-07, 07-08 AND 09-10. 9 ITA NO. 874/JP/2014 A.Y. 2011-12. DCIT VS. RAJASTHAN STATE SEEDS CORPN. JAIPUR. 14. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE ASSESSEE IS A GOVERNMENT COMPANY, THE G ENUINENESS OF EXPENSES CANNOT BE DOUBTED BY THE AO. THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ALLOWED T HE GROUND OF THE ASSESSEE RELYING UPON THE ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL FOR THE A.YS. 2006-07, 07-08 AND 09-10. IN OUR VIEW, WHEN THE RATE OF TAX REMAINS THE SAME IN THE PRESENT AS WELL AS IN SUBSEQUENT YEARS, THE DISPUTE RAISED IS ENTIRELY ACADEMIC. IN ANY CASE, THE ISSUE IS COVERED BY THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE SURPEME COURT IN THE MATTER OF EXCEL INDUSTRIES LTD., 258 ITR 295 (SC). IN VIEW OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIBU NAL FOR THE A.Y. 2009-10, WE UPHOLD THE ORDER PASSED BY LD. CIT (A). 15. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 01/01/2016. SD/- SD/- VH-VKJ-EHUK YFYR DQEKJ (T.R. MEENA) (LALIET KUMAR) YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER U;KF;D LNL;@ JUDICIAL MEMBER TK;IQJ@ JAIPUR FNUKAD@ DATED:- 01/01/2016 DAS/ VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSFKR@ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ@ THE APPELLANT- THE DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR. 2. IZR;FKHZ@ THE RESPONDENT- M/S. RAJASTHAN STATE SEEDS CORPN., JAIPUR. 3. VK;DJ VK;QDR@ CIT 4. VK;DJ VK;QDRVIHY@ THE CIT(A) 5. FOHKKXH; IZFRFUF/K] VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ@ DR, ITAT, JAIPUR 6. XKMZ QKBZY@ GUARD FILE (ITA NO. 874/JP/2014) VKNS'KKUQLKJ@ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ@ ASST. REGISTRAR 10 ITA NO. 874/JP/2014 A.Y. 2011-12. DCIT VS. RAJASTHAN STATE SEEDS CORPN. JAIPUR.