ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -1, KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR vs. SHREE TATYASAHEB KORE WARANA SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD., MAHARASHTRA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1171/PUN/2024Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 January 2025AY 2010-1133 pages

In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the issue of sale of sugar at concessional rates had been decided in favour of the assessee by the jurisdictional High Court in its own case. Therefore, the Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeals were not maintainable as the issue had attained finality.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the deletion of additions made on account of sale of sugar at concessional rates to members. The assessee argued that the issue was decided in its favour by the Bombay High Court in its own case, and the Revenue had not filed an SLP against that decision.

What were the issues?

Whether the addition on account of sale of sugar at concessional rates is sustainable when the jurisdictional High Court has already decided the issue in favour of the assessee in its own case.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(2)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCHES “B” :: PUNE

Before: DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE

For Appellant: Shri Pramod Shingte – AR
For Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari – CIT(DR)
Hearing: 17/12/2024Pronounced: 31/01/2025

PER DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM :

This bunch of Eight(08) appeals filed by the Revenue directed against the separate orders of ld.Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)[NFAC] under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961; for the assessment years referred above.Revenue has filed identical grounds for all these years. Since the issue involved is common, all these appeals were heard together and decided by the common order. We treat Appeal for Assessment Year 2007-08 as lead case :

1.

1 The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal :

“1. On facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld.CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition on account of sale of sugar on concessional rate and ignoring the fact that the Hon'ble ITAT vide various decisions has restored the issue to the file of the AO.

2.

On facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld.CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact that in assessee's own case for AY 2015-16, the Hon'ble ITAT has restored the issue to the file of AO by following the Coordinate Bench of Pune Tribunal's decision in the case of Shri Adinath SSK Vs. ACIT, which in turn has relied on the coordinate bench of Tribunal in the case of ACIT Vs. Shri Shankar SSK Ltd.

3.

On facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld.CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact that, coordinate Bench of Tribunal in the case of ACIT Vs. Shri Shankar SSK Ltd. has duly considered both the cases as relied upon by the CIT(A) viz. the decision of Hon. ITAT in the case of Chhatrapati Shahu SSK and decision of Hon. Bombay HC in the case of CIT Vs. Terana SSK and then only restored the issue of sale of sugar to members at concessional rate to the file of the AO.

4.

The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend and modify any of the above or all grounds raised at time of proceedings before the Hon ʻble Tribunal which may please be granted."

Submission of ld.DR:

2.

The ld.DR for the Revenue relied on the order of the Assessing Officer. Ld.DR submitted that since A.Y.2015-16 has been set-aside by ITAT to Assessing Officer(AO) for denovo adjudication following the principles laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Krishna SSK [2012] 211 Taxmann 109 (SC), the A.Y.2007-08 to A.Y.2014-15 may also be set-aside. Ld.DR also relied on the decision of Co-ordinate Bench of the ITAT Pune in the case of Shree Adinath SSK Ltd., in ITA No.485/PUN/2019 for A.Y.2013-14 dated 11.05.2022. 2.1 Mr.Ajay Kumar Keshari -ld.CIT(DR) in the written submission submitted that it is evident that the sale of sugar by the sugar factories to their members is not a discretionary decision of the factory, but is regulated under section 79(A) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. In accordance with this provision, the Sugar Commissioner, Pune has issued a circular to regulate the sale of sugar to members. As stated above, the sale of sugar to a member should not exceed 5 kg per month at a concessional/subsidized rate. Hence, there is no ambiguity regarding the regulation of sugar sales to members. Furthermore, it is important to highlight that the Assessing Officer(AO) took note of this regulation and the circular and incorporated the same into the assessment orders for A.Y.2017-18 and A.Y.2018-19. The AO carefully examined the matter based on the practices adopted by the State Government as per its Policy and made an addition for the Differential Amount between the Market Price and the Concessional Rate.

2.

2 It is evident that the State Government has already enacted legislation under section 79(A) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 to discourage the practice of selling sugar at concessional rates. Additionally, the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in CIT Vs. Krishna SSK [2012] 211 Taxmann 109 (SC), along with the provisions of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 and the circular dated 01.03.2006 issued by the Sugar Commissioner, Pune have provided clear guidelines on the matter.

Submission of ld.AR :

3.

The ld.Authorised Representative(ld.AR) for the assessee filed a paper book. Ld.AR submitted that this issue is already covered by the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Assessee in Income Tax Appeal(Lodg.) No.2726 of 2009, dated 01.02.2010. 3.1 Ld.AR submitted that the issue had attained finality by Hon'ble Bombay High Court's order in assessee's own case in Income Tax Appeal(Lodg.) No.2726 of 2009, dated 01.02.2010 vide which Hon'ble Bombay High Court dismissed the appeal of the Revenue. Ld.AR further submitted that Revenue has not filed any SLP against the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court regarding sale of sugar at concessional rate. Therefore, ld.AR pleaded that this issue has attained finality for the assessee.

Findings & Analysis :

4.

We have heard both the parties and perused the records. With the consent of both the parties, these appeals were heard together as the issue involved is same, grounds of appeal raised are same. We took appeal for A.Y.2007-08 as lead appeal.

4.

1 Assessee is a Co-operative Society. Assessee filed Return of Income on 30.10.2007 disclosing total income at Rs.NIL and claiming carry forward losses of earlier years of Rs.7,64,55,198/-. Then, assessee filed a revised Return of Income on 26.03.2009 increasing the losses to Rs.7,82,30,508/-. The Assessee's case was selected for scrutiny. The assessment order under section 143(3) was passed on 30.10.2009 making an addition of Rs.43,56,64,963/- on account of excessive cane price paid to the Farmers over the admissible price and Rs.2,76,65,568/- on account of sale of sugar at concessional rate to its members and non-members. Aggrieved by the assessment order, Assessee filed appeal before the ld.CIT(A). The ld.CIT(A) partly confirmed the addition. Appeal was filed before the ITAT by Revenue as well as Assessee. The appeals Number are as under :

Α.Υ.2007-08

i. For A.Y.2007-08 / DCIT Vs. Shri Tatyasaheb Kore Warana SSK Ltd., / ITA No.205/PUN/2012. ii. For A.Y.2007-08 / Shri Tatyasaheb Kore Warana SSK Ltd., Vs. DCIT / ITA No.251/PUN/2012. Α.Υ.2008-09

i. For A.Y.2008-09 / DCIT Vs. Shri Tatyasaheb Kore Warana SSK Ltd., / ITA No.599/PUN/2012. ii. For A.Y.2008-09 / Shri Tatyasaheb Kore Warana SSK Ltd., Vs. DCIT / ITA No.252/PUN/2012. Α.Υ.2009-10

i. For A.Y.2009-10 / DCIT Vs. Shri Tatyasaheb Kore Warana SSK Ltd., / ITA No.2141/PUN/2012. ii. For A.Y.2009-10 / Shri Tatyasaheb Kore Warana SSK Ltd., Vs. DCIT / ITA No.2145/PUN/2012. Α.Υ.2010-11

i. Shri Tatyasaheb Kore Warana SSK Ltd., Vs. DCIT / ITA No.827/PUN/2017 /A.Y.2010-11

Α.Υ.2011-12

i. Shri Tatyasaheb Kore Warana SSK Ltd., Vs. DCIT / ITA No.828/PUN/2017 / A.Y.2011-12

Α.Υ.2012-13

i. Shri Tatyasaheb Kore Warana SSK Ltd., Vs. DCIT / ITA No.829/PUN/2017 / A.Y.2012-13

Α.Υ.2013-14

i. Shri Tatyasaheb Kore Warana SSK Ltd., Vs. DCIT / ITA No.830/PUN/2017 / A.Y.2013-14

Α.Υ.2014-15

i. Shri Tatyasaheb Kore Warana SSK Ltd., Vs. DCIT / ITA No.1756/PUN/2017 / A.Y.2014-15

4.

2 The appeal in ITA No.251/PUN/2012 and ITA No.252/PUN/2012 were heard on 19.03.2019 and order was pronounced on 01.05.2019by ITAT Pune “A” Bench. In these group of appeals, total 120 appeals were decided together by a common order.

4.

3 The appeal in ITA No.205/PUN/2012, ITA No.599/PUN/2012, ITA No.2141/PUN/2012 and ITA No.2145/PUN/2012 were heard on 12.03.2019 by ITAT Pune "B" Bench and the same order was pronounced on 14.03.2019. In this group of appeals, total 162 cases were heard and decided together by a common order.

4.3.

1 The appeal in ITA No.827/PUN/2017, 828/PUN/2017 and ITA No.829/PUN/2017, ITA No.830/PUN/2017 and ITA No.1756/PUN/2017 were heard by ITAT on 25.09.2019 and decided vide order dated 01.10.2019 by a common order consisting of 75 appeals.

4.

4 All these appeals were decided by ITAT Pune by a common order along with other cases. The Assessing Officer in assessment order for A.Y.2007-08 dated 28.09.2021 has referred wrong ITA Appeal Numbers. The ITAT vide its common order 14.03.2019, 01.05.2019 and 01.10.2019set-aside the issue to the Assessing Officer, following the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Krishna Sahakari Karkhana Limited [2012] 27 taxmann.com 162 (SC) order dated 25.09.2012. The ITAT directed Assessing Officer to verify following aspects :

\sumn.mp3

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →