2011 (1) TMI 663 - HC - Income Tax

Addition - During the assessment, the Assessing Officer made additions, inter-alia, on account of low yield, difference in rates of sale of sugar, claim of excessive expenses, difference in sale of molasses, absence of details of parties to whom amounts were entered as payable, disallowance of expenses towards subscription and contribution, non-charging of interest on the advances made, disallowance of development expenses, disallowance of penalty payable to growers and disallowance of staff welfare expenses - Except that the other concern is also a sugar mill there is no material referred to by the Assessing Officer to justify the comparison - In any case, the low yield ratio could, at best, be the reason for the Assessing Officer to carry out a verification exercise of the results declared by the assessee - Held that there is no adverse inference by the Assessing Officer with regard to the account books and other records examined by him - Decided n favour of the assessee Regarding sale rate - There is no whisper much less a finding by the Assessing Officer that the assessee had made any sales outside the books of account or that the assessee has realised any sale proceeds of sugar outside the books of account Regarding subscription and contribution - The spirit of Rule 46A is founded on the principles of natural justice which in the present case, in our view, stand fulfilled by the fact that the CIT(A) obtained and considered the remand report of the Assessing Officer with respect to the submissions and material led by the assessee before adjudicating the issue before him It is not necessary that when additional evidence is furnished, the matter must be remanded to the Assessing Officer. It depends on nature of issue and nature of evidence - Mere fact that the yield of the assessee was not comparable to other yields, could not be a ground to doubt the results declared by the assessee - Same is the position on the issue of genuineness of sale rate, evidence regarding subscription, contribution and treatment of penalty amount - rates of molasses non-recovery of the shortage amounts, the use of subsidy and expenditure by way of interest on loans raised from the banks, the matter has merely been remanded to the Assessing Officer to ascertain the true facts - Decided in favour of the assessee

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Low yield of sugar.
2. Low sale rate of sugar.
3. Subscription and contribution to Federation of Coop. Sugar Mills Ltd.
4. Penalty payable to growers.
5. Low sale rates of molasses.
6. Amount in suspense account.
7. Consideration of evidence and material on record.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Low Yield of Sugar:
The Tribunal observed that the assessee, a cooperative society running a sugar mill, was subject to various governmental audits and maintained complete account books. The Assessing Officer's comparison of the yield with another concern, M/s Yamuna Nagar Sugar Mills, was deemed unjustified as no similarity was established. The Tribunal found no discrepancy in the records and upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition, stating that low yield could not be the sole basis for making an addition.

2. Low Sale Rate of Sugar:
The Tribunal found no justification for the Assessing Officer to make an addition by substituting the sale rate of another concern. There was no evidence of sales outside the books of account. The reasons for deleting the addition on account of low yield were applicable here as well. The CIT(A)'s decision was affirmed, and the revenue's ground was dismissed.

3. Subscription and Contribution to Federation of Coop. Sugar Mills Ltd.:
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had followed Rule 46A by confronting the material to the Assessing Officer, who provided comments. The argument that the CIT(A) did not specifically refer to Rule 46A was considered technical and unsubstantial. The CIT(A)'s decision was upheld, and the revenue's ground was dismissed.

4. Penalty Payable to Growers:
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had followed the principles of natural justice by obtaining and considering the remand report of the Assessing Officer. The decision of the CIT(A) was upheld, and the revenue's ground was dismissed.

5. Low Sale Rates of Molasses:
The Tribunal allowed the assessee to lead evidence regarding the low sale rates of molasses, which were sold below market rates. The matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer to verify the completeness and correctness of the sales declared. The assessee was required to substantiate its explanations with evidence.

6. Amount in Suspense Account:
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had advanced amounts to various concerns without charging interest. The matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer to establish whether the advances were made for business purposes. If so, no disallowance would be called for. The Assessing Officer was directed to provide a reasonable opportunity for the assessee to be heard.

7. Consideration of Evidence and Material on Record:
The Tribunal found that the amounts in question were under dispute in court. The matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer to verify the assessee's plea that the sums were sub judice. The issue of subsidy received was also remanded to verify if the subsidy was claimed per the scheme formulated.

Conclusion:
The High Court dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the Tribunal's findings and remand directions. It held that the CIT(A) had duly complied with Rule 46A, and the remand to the Assessing Officer was justified. The Tribunal's decision was upheld, and no grounds for interference were found.