THECOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. VITHAL SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKANA LTD

PDF · subscribers
TA/83/2008HC BombayHCBM03012455200821 December 2017Author: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRASANNA B. VARALE,HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUNIL K. KOTWAL3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court observed that it saw no reason to take a different view than the one adopted by a previous Division Bench of the same Court. Following the precedent set in Tax Appeal No.55/2009, which was decided in light of the Supreme Court's judgment in SLP (C) No.8590 of 2010, and considering the cryptic nature of the orders impugned, the High Court decided to remit the matter back to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Aurangabad. The Commissioner was directed to decide the appeal afresh on its merits and in accordance with law, after giving an opportunity of hearing to both parties. The High Court expressed hope that the authority would decide the matter expeditiously. No specific finding was given on the individual issues raised, as the matter was remitted.

What were the facts?

The Revenue filed an appeal before the Bombay High Court challenging an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) for the assessment year 2003-2004. The ITAT had dismissed the Revenue's appeal against an order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The High Court admitted the appeal on three substantial questions of law. The Revenue's counsel submitted that the present appeal involved identical substantial questions of law as in Tax Appeal No.55/2009, which was decided by a Division Bench of the High Court on 3.2.2014, referring to a Supreme Court judgment in SLP (C) No.8590 of 2010 (C.I.T., Bombay V/s Krishna Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd.). The Revenue's counsel stated that in view of the Apex Court judgment and the cryptic nature of the orders impugned, the matters were remitted back to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for fresh decision on merits.

What were the issues?

The High Court had to decide the following questions of law: 1. Whether the differential payment made by the assessee to cane growers after the close of the financial year or balance sheet date constitutes expenditure under Section 37 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, or is it a distribution of profits applying the real income theory? 2. Whether the Tribunal was justified in deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer for contribution to Vasant Dada Sugar Institute when only a provision was made on paper and no actual contribution was made? 3. Whether the Tribunal was justified in deleting the addition made on account of sugar sale to members at a concessional rate? Assessee's contentions: Not recorded. Revenue's contentions: The substantial questions of law were identical to those in Tax Appeal No.55/2009. The Revenue relied on the Supreme Court judgment in SLP (C) No.8590 of 2010 (C.I.T., Bombay V/s Krishna Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd.) and the High Court's order in Tax Appeal No.55/2009, which remitted similar matters to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for fresh adjudication on merits due to the cryptic nature of the orders.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 37

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
Tax Appeal No.83/2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD TAX APPEAL NO.83 OF 2008 The Commissioner of Income Tax Aayakar Bhavan, Near Holy Cross School, Cantonment, Aurangabad. ... APPELLANT VERSUS Shri Vithal Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd., At/p Murum, Tq. Omerga, District Osmanabad ... RESPONDENT ..... Shri Alok Sharma, Standing Counsel for appellant Shri G.D. Jain, Advocate holding for Shri D.L. Khivesara, Advocate for respondent ..... CORAM: PRASANNA B. VARALE AND SUNIL K. KOTWAL, JJ. DATED : 21st DECEMBER, 2017.

ORAL JUDGMENT (PER PRASANNA B. VARALE, J.):

1.

This appeal is filed by the Revenue, in challenge to the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Department was assailing the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), dated 9.2.2007, pertaining to the assessment year 2003-2004. The Tribunal could not find any favour with the Department. Resultantly, the appeal was dismissed. Present appeal was admitted by this Court by order dated 2.2.2011, on the following questions of law namely :- (1) Whether the differential payment made by the assessee(s) to the cane growers after the close of the financial year or after the balance-sheet date would constitute an expenditure under Section 37 of the Income Tax Act, 1961; and whether such differential payment would, applying the real income theory, constitute an expenditure or distribution of profits. (2) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer in respect of the contribution made by the assessee for Vasant Dada Sugar Institute in the face of the fact that actual contribution/ donation to the said institute is not made and only provision for making such contribution/ donation was made on paper? (3) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in deleting the addition made on account of sugar sale to members at concessional rate ?

2.

Mr. Alok Sharma, learned Standing Counsel for the appellant submitted that, the substantial questions of law involved in this appeal were identical substantial questions of law involved in Tax Appeal No.55/2009. The Division Bench of this Court, by order dated 3.2.2014, decided the appeal. In the order of the Division Bench, dated 3.2.2014, the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in SLP (C) No.8590 of 2010 [C.I.T., Bombay V/s Krishna Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd.) is referred to. Mr. Sharma submitted that, there are certain other appeals decided by this Court in view of the Apex Court judgment. Mr. Sharma submitted that, the matters are remitted back to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Aurangabad for decision afresh on merits. Perusal of the order dated 3.2.2014, passed by the Division Bench shows that, in view of the judgment of the Apex Court as well as in view of the fact that the orders impugned in the appeals are cryptic in nature, the Division Bench of this Court thought it fit to remit the matter to the Commissioner of Income Tax, so as to assess the matter afresh on its own merits.

3.

We see no reason to take any different view than the view adopted by Division Bench of this Court. Resultantly, the Appeal is allowed. The matter is remitted back to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Aurangabad for decision afresh on merits and in accordance with law. We hope and trust that the authority concerned namely Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Aurangabad will decide the matter afresh as expeditiously as possible, needless to state, by giving opportunity of hearing to both the parties. ( SUNIL K. KOTWAL ) ( PRASANNA B. VARALE ) JUDGE

JUDGE fmp/-

More judgments on Section 37

All 4,334 judgments and leading authorities on Section 37 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →