2012 (5) TMI 180 - HC - Income Tax

Disallowance of legal claim of deduction u/s 80-P(2)(a)(iii) wherein the appellant having inadvertently claimed deduction only u/s 80-P(2)(d) Held that - As per bye-laws of the appellant-sugar mill it is engaged in the manufacturing of sugar products from the sugarcane supplied by its members, who are admittedly sugarcane growers - Since appellant-sugar mill is engaged in marketing of agricultural produce of its members, it is entitled for the exemption as provided under Section 80-P (2) (a) (iii) of the Act in favour of assessee. Taxability of the extra money collected against levy of sugar in view of the incentive scheme of the Govt. Held that - Grant was not for the purpose of bringing into existence new assets but was for the purpose of making payment to the sugarcane growers thus same shall be treated as capital receipt Decided in the case of CIT v. Ponni Sugars & Chemicals Ltd. 2008 - TMI - 30719 - SUPREME COURT that the payment received by the assessee under the Scheme was not in the course of a trade but was of capital nature - in favour of the assessee.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Admissibility of additional grounds before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.
2. Entitlement to deduction under Section 80-P(2)(a)(iii) of the Income Tax Act.
3. Taxability of extra money collected against levy of sugar under the incentive scheme of the Government of India.

Admissibility of Additional Grounds:
The appeal was filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, challenging the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, which had refused the appellant's request to introduce two additional grounds during the appeal process. The Tribunal cited lack of complete material before them as a reason for declining the additional grounds. However, the High Court examined the bye-laws of the Co-operative Society running the sugar mill and found that the appellant was entitled to claim a deduction under Section 80-P(2)(a)(iii) of the Act. Relying on a Full Bench judgment, the High Court held that the Tribunal was unjustified in not allowing the first additional ground. Consequently, the first question was answered in favor of the assessee.

Entitlement to Deduction under Section 80-P(2)(a)(iii):
The High Court analyzed the appellant's status as a co-operative sugar mill engaged in manufacturing sugar products from sugarcane supplied by its member farmers. By examining the bye-laws and relevant provisions, it was established that the appellant was indeed engaged in marketing agricultural produce of its members, making it eligible for exemption under Section 80-P(2)(a)(iii) of the Act. Citing a Full Bench judgment, the High Court ruled in favor of the assessee, holding that the Tribunal erred in not allowing the deduction claimed under this section.

Taxability of Extra Money Collected Against Levy of Sugar:
Regarding the taxability of extra money collected against the levy of sugar under the Government of India's incentive scheme, the High Court referred to a Supreme Court judgment emphasizing that such payments are of a capital nature rather than in the course of trade. Applying this principle to the case at hand, the High Court concluded that the grant received by the appellant was a capital receipt, not meant for creating new assets but for payment to sugarcane growers. Consequently, the second question was answered in favor of the assessee, leading to the allowance of the appeal.

In conclusion, the High Court ruled in favor of the appellant on both issues, allowing the appeal and granting the deductions claimed under Section 80-P(2)(a)(iii) while determining the extra money collected against the levy of sugar as a capital receipt, not subject to taxation.