1976 (7) TMI 8 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Evidence for holding that the cane rate was lower than the average rate at which the petitioner purchased cane from the market.
2. Whether the Tribunal erred in law or misdirected itself in fixing the cane rate for cane grown by the petitioner on its own farm at a rate lower than the average purchase rate without reference to any evidence except the assessments made in the case of other sugar mills.
3. Whether the cane rate should have been fixed at the average purchase rate of sugarcane by the petitioner-company.
4. Whether the Tribunal erred in law or misdirected itself in not admitting the additional grounds of appeal filed by the petitioner-company and disposing of the same on merits (not pressed by the assessee).

Detailed Analysis:

1. Evidence for Holding Cane Rate Lower than Average Purchase Rate:
The court examined whether there was sufficient evidence to support the Income-tax Officer's determination that the cane rate for the sugarcane grown by the assessee on its own farms was lower than the average rate at which the assessee purchased cane from the market. The court noted that the assessee's farms were located near its factories, thus eliminating transport costs, which were included in the price of cane purchased from outsiders. The Income-tax Officer, Appellate Assistant Commissioner, and Tribunal all found that the purchases from outsiders were made on a forward basis, which could not be a reliable guide for determining the price of the cane produced by the assessee. The court concluded that there was sufficient evidence to support the finding that the cane rate for the assessee's own farms was lower than the average market purchase rate, answering the first question in the affirmative.

2. Tribunal's Error or Misdirection in Fixing Cane Rate:
Question No. 2 addressed whether the Tribunal erred in law or misdirected itself by fixing the cane rate for the assessee's own farms at a lower rate than the average market purchase rate without considering any evidence other than assessments of other sugar mills. The court found that this question was essentially a different aspect of the first question and did not require separate consideration. The court concluded that the Tribunal did not err or misdirect itself, answering the second question in the negative.

3. Fixing Cane Rate at Average Purchase Rate:
The third issue was whether the cane rate should be fixed at the average purchase rate of sugarcane by the assessee-company. The court reiterated that the instances of cane purchases from outsiders were not comparable due to the inclusion of transport costs and the nature of forward contracts. Therefore, the average purchase price from these transactions could not be a reliable guide for determining the cane rate for the assessee's own farms. The court answered the third question in the negative, indicating that the cane rate should not be fixed at the average purchase rate.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that there was sufficient evidence to support the determination that the cane rate for the assessee's own farms was lower than the average market purchase rate. The Tribunal did not err or misdirect itself in its decision, and the cane rate should not be fixed at the average purchase rate. The assessee was ordered to pay the costs of the revenue.