KRANTIAGANI DR G D BAPU LAD SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LIMITED,KUNDAL vs. ACIT, SANGLI

It emerges during the course of hearing that the assessee has raised its identical twins substantive grounds in the instant eight appeals inter alia pleading therein that the learned lower authorities have erred in law and on facts in disallowing/adding the alleged excess sugarcane price paid over and above the fair remunerative price “FRP” in the relevant previous year(s) and having sold sugar at concessional rates to cane growers/members in the relevant assessment years involving varying sums. Its lead appeal in ITA No. 69/PUN/2024 involves the foregoing quantum disallowances of Rs.6,36,82,734/- and Rs.1,65,35,239/-, respectively.

It further emerges with the able assistance coming from both the parties that this Tribunal’s common order in assessee’s appeal ITA Nos. 78, 67 & 68/PUN/2024 dated 16.05.2024 had already restored the very twin issues back to the Assessing Officer for afresh appropriate adjudication. Both the parties could hardly dispute that there is no factual or legal distinction in facts and law quantum letter issue of disallowance pertaining to sale of sugar at concessional rates which has been restored back. We

Next comes the former identical issue in all these assessee’s appeal regarding disallowance of alleged excess sugarcane price paid to sugarcane growers/members of the sugar Co-operative wherein the Revenue’s case is that the same very well exceeds the relevant fair remunerative price (supra). We note the legislature has inserted section 155(19) in the Act by the Finance Act, 2023 w.e.f. 01.04.2023, followed by the CBDT Circular No. 14/2023 providing for section 154 rectification in such an instance of disallowance of alleged excess cane price subject to fulfillment of various conditions for assessment years prior to 2016-17. There is further no quarrel between the parties the legislature has also inserted section 36(1)(xvii) vide its Finance Act, 2015 w.e.f. 01.04.2016 i.e. from A.Y. 2016- 17 onwards providing for deduction for such a sugarcane price “which is equal to or less than the price fixed or approved by the Government” followed by the CBDT Circular No. 18/2021 w.e.f. 25.10.2021 making it clear that the term “Government” includes state governments through State-level Acts/Orders or other legal instruments….etc. All these intervening developments make it clear that the assessee’s instant identical former substantive ground there was also deserves to be restored back to the Assessing Officer only for his afresh appropriate adjudication in tune with section 155(19) (for assessment years prior to A.Y. 2016-17) and as per section 36(1)(xvii) of the Act (for A.Y. 2016-17 onwards), respectively. We accordingly restore assessee’s instant identical foregoing substantive ground back to the learned Assessing Officer for his afresh appropriate adjudication in very terms.

No other ground(s) or argument(s) has been pressed before us by either parties at this stage.

To sum up, the assessee’s instant eight appeals are allowed for statistical purposes in above terms. A copy of this common order be placed in the respective case files.