THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AURANGABAD vs. TULJABHAVANI SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD TULJAPUR OSMANABAD.

PDF · subscribers
TA/3/2008HC BombayHCBM03030132200721 December 2017Author: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRASANNA B. VARALE,HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUNIL K. KOTWAL4 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court noted that the respondent assessee did not appear to contest the appeal. The Revenue's counsel submitted that the substantial questions of law were identical to those in Tax Appeal No.55/2009, which was decided by a Division Bench of the High Court by order dated 3.2.2014. This earlier order referred to a 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.). The Division Bench in that case, considering the Apex Court's judgment and the cryptic nature of the orders impugned, had remitted the matters back to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for a fresh decision on merits. The High Court found no reason to differ from the view adopted by the earlier Division Bench. Therefore, the appeal was allowed, and the matter was remitted back to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Aurangabad, for a fresh decision on merits and in accordance with law, after giving an opportunity of hearing to both parties.

What were the facts?

The Revenue filed an appeal before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad, challenging an order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal had dismissed the Revenue's appeals against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) dated 15.10.2004. The assessment years involved were 1994-1995, 1999-2000, and 2001-2002. The High Court admitted the appeal on three substantial questions of law. The respondent assessee, Shri Tuljabhavani Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd., was served but did not appear. The Revenue's counsel submitted that the substantial questions of law were identical to those in another appeal, Tax Appeal No.55/2009, which was decided by a Division Bench of the High Court.

What were the issues?

The High Court had to decide the following substantial questions of law: 1. Whether differential payment made by the assessee to cane growers after the financial year-end constitutes expenditure under Section 37 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, or 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 a provision for contribution/donation to Vasant Dada Sugar Institute, when no actual contribution was made. 3. Whether the Tribunal was justified in deleting the addition made on account of sugar sales to members at a concessional rate. The Revenue contended that the questions of law were identical to those in a previous appeal decided by the High Court. The judgment does not record specific arguments from the assessee as none appeared. The Revenue relied on the High Court's order in Tax Appeal No.55/2009 and a Supreme Court judgment in SLP (C) No.8590 of 2010 (C.I.T., Bombay V/s Krishna Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd.).

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.3/2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD TAX APPEAL NO.3 OF 2008 The Commissioner of Income Tax Aayakar Bhavan, Near Holy Cross School, Cantonment, Aurangabad. ... APPELLANT VERSUS Shri Tuljabhavani Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd., Naldurga, Tq. Tuljapur, District Osmanabad ... RESPONDENT ..... Shri Alok Sharma, Standing Counsel for appellant ..... 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 15.10.2004, pertaining to the assessment years ranging 1994-1995, 1999-2000 and 2001- 2002. The Tribunal could not find any favour with the Department. Resultantly, the appeals were dismissed. Present appeal was admitted by this Court by order dated 13.1.2011, 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.

Though the respondent is duly served, none appears for the respondent. As the appeal is ripe for hearing, the same was posted for final hearing in the cause list. As none appears for the respondent, we are of the view that the respondent is not interested in contesting the appeal. 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 →