Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, PUNE
Before: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO & SHRI S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI
आदेश / ORDER
PER S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JM :
These three appeals by the assessee against the common order dated 07-12-2018 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-9, Pune [‘CIT(A)’] for assessment years 2011-12, 2012-13 and 2013-14, respectively.
Since, the issues raised in all these three appeals are similar basing on the same identical facts. Therefore, with the consent of both the
2 ITA Nos.543, 544 & 545/PUN/2019, A.Ys. 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14
parties, we proceed to hear these three appeals together and to pass a consolidated order for the sake of convenience.
First, we shall take up appeal in ITA No.543/PUN/2019 for A.Y. 2011-12.
Ground No. 1 raised by the assessee challenging the action of CIT(A) in confirming the addition of Rs.1,01,23,531/- on account of Area Development Fund.
At the outset, we observe that this issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the order dated 01-05-2019 passed in batch of appeal being lead case Siddheshwar Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. in ITA No. 1210/PUN/1997 for A.Y. 1992093. The relevant portions at Para Nos. 27, 28 and 29 of the order dated 01-05-2019 are reproduced here-in-below for better understanding : “27. Now, coming to the next set of deduction; the first such issue claimed by the assessee was on account of Area Development Fund. 28. We find that though the Tribunal in Majalgaon Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. Vs. ACIT (supra) has remitted the issue back to the file of Assessing Officer; but the issue stands covered by earlier order of Tribunal in Loknete Balasaheb Desai Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. Vs. DCIT (supra), which was rendered after issue was remitted by the Apex Court in Siddheshwar Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. Vs. CIT reported in 139 taxman 434 (SC). The learned Authorized Representatives stressed that since the issue has been decided by Tribunal itself vide para 18 of the said order, there is no merit in sending the issue back to the file of Assessing Officer. The relevant para 18 reads as under:- “18. Now the question before us is whether this collection made towards “ADF” by the assessee sugar factory is impressed with the specific obligation or assessee hold this money as a trustee as held in the case of Bijlee Cotton Mills (P.) Ltd. (supra)? Our answer is yes. In this case, even if initially it was by way of discretion the Sugar Co- operative factories were collecting the fund and spending the same on the different projects undertaken in the area of operation but subsequently the collection and use of fund was regulated by the intervention of the Govt. by issuing the order u/s. 79A of the Maharashtra Co-operative Society Act. The assessee has maintained
3 ITA Nos.543, 544 & 545/PUN/2019, A.Ys. 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14
the separate account in respect of this fund and as per the statement filed before us it is seen that the assessee sugar factory is utilizing the ADF on different projects as per the approval given in the annual general meeting (AGM). The assessee has to submit the report every year in respect of the collection and utilization of the amount under the ADF to the Government. Nowhere, it is the case of the Revenue that any money is diverted by the assessee sugar factory for any other purpose other than approved in the AGM of the members. Merely because the amount collected is not kept separately in the bank account, the character of the amount will not change as held in the case of Bijlee Cotton Mills (P.) Ltd. (supra). As submitted before us the assessee is required to submit the Auditor’s Report to the Director of Sugar, Govt. of Maharashtra each year showing the opening balance of the ADF, amount collected during the year and utilized during the year (Page No. 29 of the Compilation). We, therefore, hold that the collection made by the assessee towards the ADF by way of deduction made from the sugarcane bills payable to the members and non-members is impressed with an obligation to spend the same for the specified purposes and the persons/Members paying contribution to ADF are aware before the deduction is made that for what purpose the assessee Cooperative Factory is collecting the said fund and where the fund will be utilized. In our humble opinion the assessee’s role is like a trustee of the “Area Development Fund”. We, accordingly, decide this issue in favour of the assessee. It was submitted before us that the Department has allowed the expenditure incurred by the assessee out of the ADF on the actual basis treating the same as a business expenses. As we have held that the amount collected under the ADF is not a trading receipt in the hands of the assessee hence, the deduction given by the Assessing Officer in the respective assessment years towards ADF is to be withdrawn. The Assessing Officer is accordingly direct to exclude fully the amount included towards “Area Development Fund” in the income of the assessee and also to withdraw the amount allowed as a business expenditure towards ADF. Accordingly the assessee succeeds on this issue.” 29. Since the issue has already been decided in favour of assessee, we hold that the assessee is entitled to the claim of Area Development Fund and same is to be allowed in the hands of assessee.”
In the light of the above, we hold that the assessee is entitled to claim deduction in respect of Area Development Fund. Thus, ground No. 1 raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.
Ground No. 2 raised by the assessee challenging the action of CIT(A) in confirming the addition on account of sale of sugar at concessional rate.
4 ITA Nos.543, 544 & 545/PUN/2019, A.Ys. 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14
We find that the issue of sale of sugar at concessional rate has also been considered by the Co-ordinate Bench in the case of Majalgaon Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. Vs. ACIT in ITA No. 308/PUN/2018 for the assessment year 2013-14 and has held as under :
“11. Having heard both the sides and gone through the relevant material on record, it is observed that the AO made addition of the difference between the market price and the concessional price at which sugar (final product) was given to farmers and cane growers. In this regard, it is observed that this issue has been considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Krishna Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Limited (2012) 27 taxmann.com 162 (SC). Vide judgment dated 25-09-2012, the Hon’ble Supreme Court noticed that the difference between the average price of sugar sold in the market and the price of sugar sold by the assessee to its members at concessional rate was taxed by the Department under the head “Appropriation of profit”. The Hon’ble Summit Court remitted the matter to the CIT(A) for considering, inter alia,: “whether the abovementioned practice of selling sugar at concessional rate has become the practice or custom in the Co-operative sugar industry?; and whether any Resolution has been passed by the State Government supporting the practice?; The CIT(A) would also consider on what basis the quantity of the final product, i.e. sugar, is being fixed for sale to farmers/cane growers/Members each year on month-to- month basis, apart from others from Diwali?” The issue under consideration can be decided by an appropriate lower authority only on the touchstone of the relevant factors noted in the above judgment. In our considered opinion, it would be just and fair if the impugned orders on this score are set aside and the matter is restored to the file of AOs, instead of to the CITs(A), for fresh consideration as to whether the difference between the average price of sugar sold in the market and that sold to members at concessional rate is appropriation of profit or not, in the light of the directions given by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Krishna Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Limited (supra). Restoration to the AO is necessitated because, following the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Tasgaon Taluka S.S.K. Ltd. (supra), we have remitted the issue of payment of excessive price to the file of AO, and as such, the instant issue cannot be sent to ld. CIT(A) as it would amount to simultaneously sending one part of the same assessment order to the AO and other to the CIT(A), which is not appropriate. We order accordingly.”
Both the sides have stated at the Bar that the issue raised in present appeal is identical to the one already decided by the Co-ordinate Bench. Thus, in view of the above order by Co-ordinate Bench this issue is restored back to the file of Assessing Officer for de-novo adjudication in similar terms. The Assessing Officer shall grant reasonable opportunity of
5 ITA Nos.543, 544 & 545/PUN/2019, A.Ys. 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14
hearing to the assessee, in accordance with law. Thus, ground No. 2 raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.
Ground No. 3 raised by the assessee challenging the action of CIT(A) in confirming the addition on account of excess cane price.
At the outset, we note that this issue has already been considered and adjudicated by the Co-ordinate Bench of Tribunal in batch of appeals vide order dated 14-03-2019 out of which the lead case being Majalgaon Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. (supra). The Co-ordinate Bench after considering the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of CIT Vs. Tasgaon Taluka S.S.K. Ltd. reported as 103 taxmann.com 57 has decided this issue as under : “5. We have heard both the sides and gone through the relevant material on record. There is consensus ad idem between the rival parties that the issue of payment of excessive price on purchase of sugarcane by the assesses is no more res integra in view of the recent judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT Vs. Tasgaon Taluka S.S.K. Ltd. (2019) 103 taxmann.com 57 (SC). The Hon’ble Apex Court, vide its judgment dated 05-03-2019, has elaborately dealt with this issue. It recorded the factual matrix that the assessee in that case purchased and crushed sugarcane and paid price for the purchase during crushing seasons 1996-97 and 1997-98, firstly, at the time of purchase of sugarcane and then, later, as per the Mantri Committee advice. It further noted that the production of sugar is covered by the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and the Government issued Sugar Cane (Control) Order, 1966, which deals with all aspects of production of sugarcane and sales thereof including the price to be paid to the cane growers. Clause 3 of the Sugar Cane (Control) Order, 1966 authorizes the Government to fix minimum sugarcane price. In addition, the additional sugarcane price is also payable as per clause 5A of the Control Order, 1966. The AO in that case concluded that the difference between the price paid as per clause 3 of the Control Order, 1966 determined by the Central Government and the price determined by the State Government under clause 5A of the Control Order, 1966, was in the nature of `distribution of profits’ and hence not deductible as expenditure. He, therefore, made an addition for such sum paid to members as well as non-members. When the matter finally came up before the Hon’ble Apex Court, it noted that clause 5A was inserted in the year 1974 on the basis of the recommendations made by the Bhargava Commission, which recommended payment of additional price at the end of the season on 50:50 profit sharing basis between the growers and factories, to be worked out in accordance with the Second Schedule to the Control Order, 1966. Their Lordships noted that at the time when additional purchase price is determined/fixed under clause 5A, the accounts are settled and the
6 ITA Nos.543, 544 & 545/PUN/2019, A.Ys. 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14
particulars are provided by the concerned Co-operative Society as to what will be the expenditure and what will be the profit etc. Considering the fact that Statutory Minimum Price (SMP), determined under clause 3 of the Control Order, 1966, which is paid at the beginning of the season, is deductible in the entirety and the difference between SMP determined under clause 3 and SAP/additional purchase price determined under clause 5A, has an element of distribution of profit which cannot be allowed as deduction, the Hon’ble Supreme Court remitted the matter to the file of the AO for considering the modalities and manner in which SAP/additional purchase price/final price is decided. He has been directed to carry out an exercise of considering accounts/balance sheet and the material supplied to the State Government for the purpose of deciding/fixing the final price/additional purchase price/SAP under clause 5A of the Control Order, 1966 and thereafter determine as to what amount would form part of the distribution of profit and the other as deductible expenditure. The relevant findings of the Hon’ble Apex Court are reproduced as under:- “9.4. ..... Therefore, to the extent of the component of profit which will be a part of the final determination of SAP and/or the final price/additional purchase price fixed under Clause 5A would certainly be and/or said to be an appropriation of profit. However, at the same time, the entire/whole amount of difference between the SMP and the SAP per se cannot be said to be an appropriation of profit. As observed hereinabove, only that part/component of profit, while determining the final price worked out/SAP/additional purchase price would be and/or can be said to be an appropriation of profit and for that an exercise is to be done by the assessing officer by calling upon the assessee to produce the statement of accounts, balance sheet and the material supplied to the State Government for the purpose of deciding/fixing the final price/additional purchase price/SAP under Clause 5A of the Control Order, 1966. Merely because the higher price is paid to both, members and non-members, qua the members, still the question would remain with respect to the distribution of profit/sharing of the profit. So far as the non-members are concerned, the same can be dealt with and/or considered applying Section 40A (2) of the Act, i.e., the assessing officer on the material on record has to determine whether the amount paid is excessive or unreasonable or not........ 9.5 Therefore, the assessing officer will have to take into account the manner in which the business works, the modalities and manner in which SAP/additional purchase price/final price are decided and to determine what amount would form part of the profit and after undertaking such an exercise whatever is the profit component is to be considered as sharing of profit/distribution of profit and the rest of the amount is to be considered as deductible as expenditure.”
Both the sides are unanimously agreeable that the extant issue of deduction for payment of excessive price for purchase of sugarcane, raised in most of the appeals under consideration, is squarely covered by the aforesaid judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Respectfully following the precedent, we set-aside the impugned orders on this score and remit the matter to the file of the respective A.Os. for deciding it afresh as per law in consonance with the articulation of law by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforenoted judgment. The AO would allow deduction for the price paid under clause 3 of the Sugar Cane (Control) Order, 1966 and then determine the component of distribution of profit embedded in the price paid under clause 5A, by considering the statement of accounts, balance sheet and other
7 ITA Nos.543, 544 & 545/PUN/2019, A.Ys. 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14
relevant material supplied to the State Government for the purpose of deciding/fixing the final price/additional purchase price/SAP under this clause. The amount relatable to the profit component or sharing of profit/distribution of profit paid by the assessee, which would be appropriation of income, will not be allowed as deduction, while the remaining amount, being a charge against the income, will be considered as deductible expenditure. At this stage, it is made clear that the distribution of profits can only be qua the payments made to the members. In so far as the non-members are concerned, the case will be considered afresh by the AO by applying the provisions of section 40A(2) of the Act, as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court supra. Needless to say, the assessee will be allowed a reasonable opportunity of hearing by the AO in such fresh determination of the issue. 7. It is noted that in some of the appeals, the assessees have raised an alternate ground for allowing deduction u/s.80P in respect of the addition.
The ld. ARs, in some of the cases, which were represented by them, were fair enough not to press such ground as it is only an alternate ground and having become infructuous in view of the restoration of the matter to the AO. No argument was advanced in support of such ground in other cases, even where the ld. ARs participated in proceedings before the Tribunal. Therefore, the said alternate ground in all such cases is dismissed.”
Thus, in view of the statement made by both the sides that the facts in the present appeal is identical, the issue relating to excess sugarcane price paid by the assessee is restored to the file of Assessing Officer with similar directions as above in the case of Majalgaon Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. Vs. ACIT (supra). The Assessing Officer shall decide the issue after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee, in accordance with law. Thus, ground No. 3 raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.
Ground No. 4 raised by the assessee challenging the action of CIT(A) in confirming the disallowance on account of cane harvesting and transportation expenditure.
8 ITA Nos.543, 544 & 545/PUN/2019, A.Ys. 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14
We find that this issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by CBDT Circular No. 6/2007, dated 11-10-2007. For the sake of ready reference the same is reproduced here-in-below : “1. Instances have come to the notice of the Board wherein Assessing Officers have disallowed the claim of harvesting and transportation expenses incurred by the Co-operative sugar mills for procuring sugarcane from farmers, who are members of such Co-operative Sugar Mills and who are bound under an agreement to supply the sugarcane exclusively to the concerned sugar Mill. 2. The issue of allowability of such expenses in the case of Co-operative Sugar Mills has been examined by the Board. These expenses are incurred by the Sugar Mills for ensuring an adequate and sustained supply of freshly cut sugarcane that is an essential input for the continuous running of such Mills. These expenses are, therefore; incurred for a commercial expediency and are prima facie wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business. Such expenses are, therefore, allowable in the computation of the income of the Co-operative Sugar Mills.”
Thus, in view of CBDT Circular (supra) harvesting and transportation expenditure are allowable. Consequently, the issue is decided in favour of the assessee.
Ground No. 5 raised by the assessee challenging the action of CIT(A) in sustaining the addition made by the AO on account of Garden Expenses.
We note that the assessee claimed agricultural income of Rs.2,53,538/- as exempt. The AO disallowed the expenditure to an extent of Rs.17,13,970/- (Rs.16,75,875/- + Rs.37,915/-) as debited to the profit and loss account holding that the same is disallowable relating to exempt income earned. Before the CIT(A), it was contended by the assessee that the AO made said disallowance without appreciating the nature, necessity and usefulness of garden expenses which were spent to check the pollution and to keep the ecological balance in the area of assessee’s operation.
9 ITA Nos.543, 544 & 545/PUN/2019, A.Ys. 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14
Considering the same, the CIT(A) disallowed 50% of Rs.17,13,970/- as fair and reasonable. Before us the ld. AR placed on record decision of Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Shree Panchaganga Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. reported in (2003) 127 Taxman 581 (Bombay) and drew our attention to Q. No. 4 argued that the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay answered the question the expenses incurred for Samajik Vanikaran and Area Project is allowable expenditure and prayed to delete the addition. The relevant portion of the CIT(A)’s order at Para No. 9 is reproduced here- in-below for ready reference :
“9. Ground No. 4 relates to disallowing and added back an amount of Rs.17,13,970/- on account of Garden expenses. 9.1 The AO has found that the appellant has reduced agricultural income of Rs.2,53,538/- which has been credited to the P & L a/c from computation of income and claimed it as exempt. The AO found that the appellant had debited an amount of Rs.16,75,875/- and Rs.37,915/- as garden expenses in the P & L a/c under the heads other expenses. The AO has disallowed the same holding that the income from the garden has been claimed as exempt and therefore, the expenditure relating to the same is disallowable u/s. 14A of the I.T. Act. 9.2 The appellant made submissions dtd. 22.03.2018 and the same is reproduced below : EXEMPT INCOME UNDER SECTION 14A Rs.17,13,970/- The assessee is a Co-operative society engaged in the Business of Manufacturing of sugar from sugarcane. During the year the society has incurred an expenditure of Rs.16,75,875/- & Rs.37,915/- under the head Garden Expenses, which has been wrongly disallowed by the learned A.O., without appreciating the nature, necessity and usefulness of this kind of activity. In the premises of our society, we have maintained the garden with the intention to check the pollution and to keep the ecological balance in the area of operation. This is also being statutory requirement from the point of view of pollution control board, therefore, the entire expenditure is Gizz “Genuine Business Expenditure" and shall be allowed in full. This disallowance is not warranted, as the entire amounts spent on Garden Expenses and are business in nature and there is neither and personal nor wasteful use. It is fully vouched. It has been duly audited and is totally meant for business proposes, nature and there is neither any personal nor wasteful which is wholly solely and exclusively for the purpose of the business. Therefore, question of disallowance of the same does not arise. 9.3 Considering the fact, that the maintenance of the garden is to reduce the pollution in the factory premises, it has to be held that it is related to the
10 ITA Nos.543, 544 & 545/PUN/2019, A.Ys. 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14
business of the appellant. It is also mandatory on the management of every factory to takes steps to reduce the pollution. However, as the appellant has claimed certain income generated from this activity as exempt, it would be fair and reasonable to disallow only part of this expenditure. Expenditure at the rate of 50% on the agricultural income would be sufficient to account for the expenditure relating to the agricultural income. Therefore, the ground is treated as partly allowed.”
On perusal of the above, we restrict the disallowance to the extent of expenditure incurred in earning the exempt income earned. The AO shall examine the same and disallow expenditure in relation to exempt income earned. We have given thoughtful consideration to the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Shree Panchaganga Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. (supra) and we note that the Hon’ble High Court was pleased to allow expenditure incurred for Samajik Vanikaran and Area Project surrounding the factory by tree plantation. The amount of expenditure claimed in the present case relating to garden expenditure in no way the facts of the same could be related to the facts before the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay. Therefore, the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay is not applicable in the present case. Therefore, we deem it proper to remand the issue to the file of AO to his fresh adjudication as indicated above. The assessee is liberty to file evidences, if any, in support of its claim. The order of CIT(A) is modified as indicated above. Thus, ground No. 5 raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.
Ground No. 6 raised by the assessee is misconceived and requires no adjudication, thus, it is dismissed.
In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose.
11 ITA Nos.543, 544 & 545/PUN/2019, A.Ys. 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14
ITA No. 544/PUN/2019 for A.Y. 2012-13
We find that the issues raised in the appeals and the ground Nos. 1 to 4 and 6 in ITA No. 544/PUN/2019 are identical to ground Nos. 2 to 6 in ITA No. 543/PUN/2019. Since, the ground Nos. 1 to 4 and 6 in ITA No. 544/PUN/2019 are similar to ground Nos. 2 to 6 in ITA No. 543/PUN/2019, the findings given by us while deciding the ground Nos. 2 to 6 of appeal of assessee in ITA No. 543/PUN/2019 would mutatis mutandis apply to ground Nos. 1 to 4 and 6 in ITA No. 544/PUN/2019, as well. Accordingly, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose.
Ground No. 5 raised by the assessee challenging the action of CIT(A) in sustaining the addition of Rs.11,47,715/- credited to general reserve treating the same as revenue receipt.
We note that the AO treated a sum of Rs.12,18,383/- as income of the assessee which was taken directly to the general reserve. The contention of assessee is that the said amount is not taxable. Further, it was contended that during every sugar season loss to an extent of 5 to 10 per cent in sugarcane on an average at about 30 to 35 percent of sugarcane area is affected. The assessee society transferred the claim amount to general reserve basing the loss in sugarcane in cane yard. The CIT(A) considering the same disallowed amount received under the head “Burnt Sugarcane” to an extent of Rs.10,94,810/- and directed the AO to allow other amount on account of admission fees from members, nominal members, transmission fees from legal heirs and unclaimed amount. The
12 ITA Nos.543, 544 & 545/PUN/2019, A.Ys. 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14
relevant portion of the CIT(A) at Para No. 9 is reproduced here-in-below for ready reference : “9. Ground No. 5 relates to general reserve. 9.1 The appellant has taken certain amount directly to the general reserve holding them as not taxable. They are particulars of such amounts are as follows and the AO as treated them as income of the appellant. Date of Credit Amount credited Description of the credit 31.03.2012 1,660 Admission fees from members 31.03.2012 51,508 Admission fees from nominal members 31.03.2012 17,500 Transmission fees from legal heirs 31.03.2012 10,94,810 Collection against burnt cane 31.03.2012 52,905 Unclaimed amount 12,18,383 Total
9.2 The appellant made submissions dtd. 22.03.2018 which are reproduced below : 5) GENERAL RESERVE Rs.12,18,383/- Burn Sugarcane Rs.10,94,810/- During the sugar season an average 30 to 35 per cent area is affected, which could result in a 5 to 10 per cent loss in sugarcane in cane Yard. It was loss of sugar factory hence society has transfer this amount to General Reserve But the AO has consider as income of the society. Therefore, considering the above facts we hereby request your Good Honour to delete the addition on General reserve.” 9.3 It is seen from the submissions that the appellant has not specified the reason for not considering these amounts as income. On perusing the same the collections from burnt cane and unclaimed amount are in the nature of revenue receipts. The AO is directed to treat these two amounts as income of the appellant. As regards the other receipts, they are more in the nature of capital receipts and hence, the same need not be added to the income. The ground is partly allowed.”
On perusal of the same, admittedly, the amount received under the head “Burnt cane” is a chargeable to tax. The CIT(A) held the same as revenue receipt. Therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the order of CIT(A) and it is justified. Thus, ground No. 5 raised by the assessee is dismissed.
13 ITA Nos.543, 544 & 545/PUN/2019, A.Ys. 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14
In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose.
ITA No. 545/PUN/2019 for A.Y. 2013-14.
We find that the issues raised in the appeals and the ground Nos. 1 to 4 and 6 in ITA No. 545/PUN/2019 are identical to ground Nos. 1 to 4 and 6 in ITA No. 543/PUN/2019. Since, the ground Nos. 1 to 4 and 6 in ITA No. 545/PUN/2019 are similar to ground Nos. 1 to 4 and 6 in ITA No. 543/PUN/2019, the findings given by us while deciding the ground Nos. 1 to 4 and 6 of appeal of assessee in ITA No. 543/PUN/2019 would mutatis mutandis apply to ground Nos. 1 to 4 and 6 in ITA No. 545/PUN/2019, as well. Accordingly, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose.
Ground No. 5 raised by the assessee challenging the action of CIT(A) in sustaining the disallowance of contribution of Rs.2,43,153/- made to Vasantdada Sugar Institute.
The ld. AR submitted that the issue of provision for VSI contribution has been decided by the Co-ordinate Bench in favour of the assessee by following the order of Tribunal in the case of Bhima S.S.K. Ltd. in ITA No. 1414/PUN/2000. The ld. DR fairly admitted that this issue has been considered by the Co-ordinate Bench. The Co-ordinate Bench while deciding this issue in favour of assessee has observed as under :
“18. We have heard both the sides and gone through the relevant material on record. It is found that the ld. CIT(A) has determined this issue in favour of the assessee by following the order passed by the Pune Benches of the Tribunal in the case of Bhima S.S.K. Ltd. (supra). No material has been placed on record to show that this order of the Tribunal has been reversed or
14 ITA Nos.543, 544 & 545/PUN/2019, A.Ys. 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14
modified in any manner by the Hon’ble High Court. Respectfully following the precedent, we decide this issue in favour of the assessee.”
Thus, in view of the above findings of the Tribunal and submissions of both the sides, the issue is decided in favour of the assessee. Thus, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose.
To sum up, all the appeals of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose.
Order pronounced in the open court on 01st August, 2022.
Sd/- Sd/- (Inturi Rama Rao) (S.S. Viswanethra Ravi) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे / Pune; दिनाांक / Dated : 01st August, 2022. रदव
आदेश की प्रधिधलधप अग्रेधर्ि / Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपीलार्थी / The Appellant. 1. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent. 2. 3. The CIT(A)-9, Pune 4. The Pr. CIT-3, Pune दवभागीय प्रदतदनदि, आयकर अपीलीय अदिकरण, “ए” बेंच, 5. पुणे / DR, ITAT, “A” Bench, Pune. गार्ड फ़ाइल / Guard File. 6. //सत्यादपत प्रदत// True Copy// आिेशानुसार / BY ORDER,
वररष्ठ दनजी सदचव / Sr. Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अदिकरण ,पुणे / ITAT, Pune