9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (7) TMI 844X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l order in assessee's own case for assessment year 2005-06 in I.T.A. No.303/Lkw/2013 dated 24/04/2014, copy available on pages 76 to 84 of the paper book. 4. We have considered the rival submissions. We find that in assessment year 2005-06 in assessee's own case, similar issue was decided by the Tribunal against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee by following the Tribunal order in assessee's own case for assessment year 2008-09 in I.T.A. No.409/Lkw/2013 dated 29/11/2013. Since Learned D.R. of the Revenue could not point out any difference in facts as compared to the facts in assessment year 2005-06 and 2008-09 wherein the Tribunal decided the similar issue in favour of the assessee, we do not find any reason to take a contrary view. Accordingly, this ground of Revenue is rejected. 5. Ground No. 2 is as under: "2. That the Commissioner of Income Tax ( Appeals) is not justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 35,67,752/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of interest payable on loan from Sugar Development Fund and the CIT (A) has not considered the facts and circumstances as mentioned by the Assessing Officer in the assessment order." 6. Learned D. R. of the Revenue ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Income Tax (Appeals) is not justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 84,20,000/- rightly made by the Assessing Officer on account of unsecured loan from the U.P. Cooperative Sugar Factories Federation Limited , Lucknow for Cane Price Payment and the CIT (A) has not considered the facts and circumstances as mentioned by the Assessing Officer in the assessment order." 9. Learned D. R. of the Revenue supported the assessment order whereas learned A. R. of the assessee supported the order of learned CIT(A). 10. We have considered the rival submissions. We find that this issue was decided by learned CIT(A) by making following observations on page 5 of his order, which are reproduced below for the sake of ready reference:- "Decision and reasons therefor I have carefully considered the issue, perused the assessment order and gone through the detailed written submissions. The assessee has received Rs. 17500000.00 for cane price payment from U.P. Cooperative Sugar Factories Federation Ltd. Lucknow and repaid Rs. 9080000.00 against the same. The U.P. Cooperative Sugar Factories Federation Ltd. is regular assessee with JCIT-II Lucknow having PAN-AAAAU 0391D and thus the genuineness of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... deduction of Share Money from Producer, Members and the CIT(A) has not considered the facts and circumstances as mentioned by the Assessing Officer in the assessment order." 13. Learned D. R. of the Revenue supported the assessment order whereas learned A. R. of the assessee supported the order of learned CIT(A). He also submitted that the reply given by the assessee before the Assessing Officer as per letter dated 05/09/2008 is available on pages 66 to 69 of the paper book. He also submitted that the copy of ledger account is available on pages 95 and 96 of the paper book. He also drew our attention to page No. 28 & 29 of the paper book containing ledger account copy for the present year. 14. We have considered the rival submissions. We find that as per copy of ledger account for the present year available on pages 28 and 29 of the paper book, there is opening balance of Rs. 1,05,88,001.75 and the closing balance is Rs. 1,07,99,684.88. As per the copy of ledger account of succeeding year available on pages 95 and 96 of the paper book, the opening balance is the same as closing balance in the present year and there is transfer of fully paid shares of Rs. 3.75 lac on 31/03/2007 l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Siddheshwar Sahkari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. vs. CIT [2004] 270 ITR 1 (SC). No difference in facts could be pointed out by Learned D.R. of the Revenue and therefore, we do not find any reason to take a contrary view in the present year. Hence, by respectfully following the Tribunal decision for assessment year 2005-06, we decline to interfere in the order of learned CIT(A). Ground No. 5 is rejected. 18. Ground No. 6 is as under: "6. That the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals ) is not justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 13,41,800/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of payment of subscription to Federation under section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act and the CIT (A) has not considered the facts and circumstances as mentioned by the Assessing Officer in the assessment order." 19. Learned D. R. of the Revenue supported the assessment order whereas learned A. R. of the assessee supported the order of learned CIT(A). He also submitted that this issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the Tribunal decision in the case of ACIT, Sitapur vs. Kisan Sahkari Chini Mill Ltd. Sampurnanagar, Lakhimpur Kheri in I.T.A. No.406 to 409/Lkw/2013 dated 29/11/2013. He also submitted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e cane price payment has been made and vide reply dated 05/09/2008 the copy of account of deduction on account of school fund has been submitted during the course of hearing vide order reply dated 05/09/2008. The appellant's AR also filed a copy of the reply dated 05/09/2008 which find place in the paper book at sl no. 66 to 69. In view of the details as filed, action of the Assessing Officer in making the addition is not maintainable and the same is deleted." 23.1 From the above Para from the order of learned CIT(A), we find that no deduction was made in the present year. We also find that the copy of ledger account is available on page No. 62 of the paper book and as per the same, there is opening balance of Rs. 390062.46 and the same amount is the closing balance and therefore, there is no deduction from cane growers in the present year. In view of this fact that there is no deduction in the present year, the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer is not justified and therefore, we hold that the same was rightly deleted by learned CIT(A). This ground is rejected. 24. Ground No. 8 is as under: "8. That the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals ) is not justified in deleting ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
