NEW PHALTAN SUGAR WORKS LTD.,,SATARA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

आदेश / ORDER

PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JM :

This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – 2, Pune dated 15.10.2015 for assessment year 2011-12.

“1. The learned CIT(A)-2, Pune erred in law and on facts in sustaining the addition made by the learned AO amounting to Rs.69,95,620/- by treating the provision made for sugarcane purchase as expenditure relating to prior period i.e. AY 2010-11. The authorities failed to appreciate that the sugarcane pertaining to the provision of Rs. 69,95,620/- was crushed in A.Y. 2011-12 itself.

ITA No.238/PUN/2016 2. The learned CIT(A)-2, Pune erred in law and on facts in sustaining the addition made by the learned AO, amounting to Rs. 20,44,175/-, on account of non- deduction of tax at source on interest payment to Shetkari Kamgar Patasanstha. He ought to have appreciated that the said party was a co-operative society engaged in the business of banking and as such was covered under the exception provided in section 194A(3) of the ITA, 1961. 3. The learned CIT(A)-2, Pune erred in law and on facts in sustaining the addition made by the learned AO, amounting to Rs. 8,52,897/-,on account of non-deduction of tax at source on payment of guarantee commission to Chairman. He failed to appreciate the fact that the payee party had offered the said commission to tax and had duly paid the taxes thereon.”

13.12.2017 through Register Post with Acknowledgment Due (RPAD)

on the address mentioned in Form No.36 for 17.01.2018. The notice

was duly served as is evident from the acknowledgment available on

record. On the date fixed, none appeared on behalf of the assessee.

The case was thereafter adjourned to 04.04.2018 and fresh notice

was issued to the assessee through RPAD on 17.01.2018 for

04.04.2018. The acknowledgment of service of notice was duly

received back. Despite service of notice, again none appeared on

behalf of the assessee on the date fixed and the appeal was adjourned

to 18.06.2018. Thereafter on all subsequent dates i.e., on

06.09.2018, 14.03.2019, 19.03.2019 and 06.05.2019 none appeared

to represent the assessee. It seems that the assessee is not keen to

pursue the appeal. Under such circumstances, the appeal is taken

up for hearing with the assistance of ld.D.R and the material available

on record.

defended the impugned order and prayed for dismissing the appeal of

assessee.

ITA No.238/PUN/2016

the documents available on record. The assessee company is

engaged in manufacturing of Sugar. In scrutiny assessment

proceedings, the AO made following additions / disallowances :

Aggrieved with the assessment order dt.14.02.2014, the

assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The first Appellate Authority

dismissed the appeal of assessee in toto. Hence, the present appeal.

the assessee to show any perversity in the impugned order. In the

absence of any contrary material, we find no reason to interfere with

the findings of CIT(A). Accordingly, the impugned order is upheld

and the appeal of assessee is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open Court after hearing of the appeal on Monday, the 06th day of May, 2019.

Sd/- Sd/- (R.S. SYAL) (VIKAS AWASTHY) VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER

पुणे Pune; �दनांक Dated : 06th May, 2019. Yamini

ITA No.238/PUN/2016

आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत/Copy of the Order forwarded to :

आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER

// True Copy //

व�र�ठ �नजी स�चव / Sr. Private Secretary आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण ,पुणे / ITAT, Pune.