2022 (1) TMI 1062 - AT - Income Tax

Disallowance on account of portion of cane price in excess of Fair Rate Price ( FRP ) - HELD THAT - As decided in assessee s own case 2019 (8) TMI 1047 - ITAT SURAT relying on TASGAON TALUKA S.S.K. LTD. 2019 (3) TMI 321 - SUPREME COURT we restore the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee to the file of Assessing Officer to decide the issue afresh - In the result appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance of cane price paid in excess of Fair Rate Price (FRP) under Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Jurisdiction and validity of the Assessing Officer's (AO) and Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] actions.
3. Consistency in the application of tax laws across different assessment years.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Disallowance of Cane Price Paid in Excess of FRP:
The primary issue in both appeals is the disallowance of ?160,03,41,255/- from the total cane price paid to sugarcane growers, which the AO and CIT(A) deemed excessive and not allowable under Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The AO considered the excess over FRP as inflated price amounting to diversion of profit. The assessee argued that the final cane price was fixed with the approval of the State Government and should be allowed as a business expenditure. The Tribunal referred to the Supreme Court's judgment in CIT vs. Tasgaon Taluka S.S.K. Ltd., which directed the AO to differentiate between the statutory minimum price (SMP) and the additional price determined under Clause 5A of the Sugar Cane (Control) Order, 1966. The Supreme Court held that only the profit component in the additional price constitutes an appropriation of profit and is not deductible, while the remaining amount is deductible as business expenditure.

2. Jurisdiction and Validity of AO and CIT(A) Actions:
The assessee contended that the AO and CIT(A) acted without jurisdiction and their decisions were arbitrary and perverse. The Tribunal found that the AO must examine the accounts, balance sheet, and materials provided to the State Government to determine the final price. The AO should consider the manner in which the business operates and the modalities of fixing the final price under Clause 5A. The Tribunal restored the matter to the AO for fresh determination, emphasizing the need for a fair and reasonable opportunity for the assessee to present their case.

3. Consistency in Application of Tax Laws:
The assessee highlighted that in previous assessment years, similar cane prices were allowed as business expenditure, and the AO's contrary decision violated the principle of consistency as established by the Supreme Court in CIT Vs. Excel Industries Ltd. The Tribunal acknowledged the importance of consistency and directed the AO to follow the precedent set in the assessee's own case for the assessment year 2012-13, where the matter was remitted for fresh consideration in light of the Supreme Court's guidance.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal restored both appeals to the AO for fresh adjudication, directing the AO to follow the Supreme Court's decision in Tasgaon Taluka S.S.K. Ltd. and to determine the deductible expenditure by considering the statutory minimum price and the additional price components. The AO must provide the assessee with a fair opportunity to present their case and ensure consistency in the application of tax laws. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes, and the AO was instructed to pass a fresh order in accordance with the law.