THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AURANGABAD vs. JAI JAWAN JAI KISAN SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD LATUR

PDF · subscribers
TA/32/2008HC BombayHCBM03000710200821 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, noting that the respondent did not appear, proceeded to hear the appeal ex-parte. The Court observed 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 same High Court. In that previous decision, the Court, in light of the Apex Court's judgment in C.I.T., Bombay V/s Krishna Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. and finding the impugned orders to be cryptic, had remitted the matters back to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for a fresh assessment on merits. The High Court found no reason to deviate from this established precedent. Consequently, 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, with a direction to provide an opportunity of hearing to both parties.

What were the facts?

The Revenue has filed an appeal challenging an order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The ITAT had dismissed the Department's appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) dated September 30, 2004, concerning assessment year 1999-2000. The assessee is Jai Jawan Jai Kisan Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. The High Court admitted the appeal on specific questions of law. The respondent (assessee) did not appear, but the appeal was heard ex-parte. The Revenue's counsel submitted that the issues were identical to those in Tax Appeal No. 55/2009, which was decided by a Division Bench of the High Court.

What were the issues?

1. Whether payments made by a cooperative sugar factory to its members or non-members for sugarcane, exceeding the State-advised price fixed by the Commissioner of Sugar, are disallowable under Section 40A(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and thus taxable income of the assessee? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the payments made by the cooperative society were not excessive and unreasonable under Section 40A(2) and Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961? Assessee's contentions: Not recorded in the judgment. Revenue's contentions: The substantial questions of law are identical to those in Tax Appeal No. 55/2009. The Revenue relies on 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.). The Revenue submits that similar matters were remitted back to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for fresh consideration.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 40A(2),Section 37(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
F.A. No.1442/2017 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD TAX APPEAL NO.32 OF 2008 The Commissioner of Income Tax Aayakar Bhavan, Near Holy Cross School, Cantonment, Aurangabad. ... APPELLANT VERSUS Jai Jawan Jai Kisan Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd., At/p Nalegaon, Tq. Chakur, District Latur ... 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 30.9.2004, pertaining to the assessment year 1999-2000. 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 5.7.2011, on the following questions of law namely :- (1) Whether the payments made by a cooperative society (Co-operative sugar factory) to it's members or non- members towards purchase price of sugar cane supplied, in excess of the price as fixed by the Commissioner of Sugar (Registrar of Co-operative Societies representing the State) i.e. State advised price, is liable to be disallowed under Section 40A(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and computed as taxable income of the assessee ? (2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the payments made by the Co-operative Society were not excessive and unreasonable within the meaning of Sec. 40A(2) and 37(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 ?

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 40A(2)

All 542 judgments and leading authorities on Section 40A(2) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →