THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AURANGABAD vs. JAI JAWAN JAI KISAN SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD LATUR
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?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER PRASANNA B. VARALE, J.):
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 ?
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.
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)
- Bellsonica Auto Component India Private… vs ACIT, Circle-1(1), GurgaonITA 1041/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: Disposed7 Oct 2026AY 2015-16
- Pramod Lakra, Deputy Commissioner of Income… vs M/S. Shree Baidyanath Ayurved Bhawan Pvt…ITA 2692/KOL/2025[2021-22]Status: Disposed28 Sept 2026AY 2021-22
- DCIT, Circle-11(1), Kolkata vs Shree Baidyanath Ayurved Bhawan Pvt Ltd…ITA 2691/KOL/2025[2020-21]Status: Disposed28 Sept 2026AY 2020-21
- Shree Baidyanath Ayurved Bhawan Private… vs DCIT, Circle 11(1), KolkataITA 1033/KOL/2025[2021-2022]Status: Disposed28 Sept 2026AY 2021-2022
- Shree Baidyanath Ayurved Bhawan Private… vs DCIT, Circle 11(1), KolkataITA 1032/KOL/2025[2020-2021]Status: Disposed28 Sept 2026AY 2020-2021
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Utkal Suppliers,Ganjam vs. Assistant Commissioner Of CT And GST, Ganjam-I Circle,GanjamOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of Hte Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of The Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of The Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Govindjee Dairy Milk Private Limited vs. Central Goods And Services TaxRajasthan · 27 Oct 2026