1994 (4) TMI 99 - AT - Income Tax

Assessing Officer, Assessment Year, Expenditure Incurred, Purchase Price, Wholly And Exclusively

Issues Involved:

1. Disallowance of additional cane price paid by the assessee.
2. Justification of the additional cane price as a business expenditure.
3. Allegations of tax avoidance through capitalizing the additional cane price.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Disallowance of Additional Cane Price Paid by the Assessee:

The assessee, a cooperative society engaged in the manufacture and sale of sugar, declared an income of Rs. 2,11,77,724 for the assessment year 1990-91. The scrutiny revealed that the assessee claimed an additional cane price of Rs. 5,19,07,100, which was later reduced to Rs. 4,15,25,680 by the Assessing Officer under section 154. The Assessing Officer disallowed the additional cane price, concluding that the payment was not warranted by the genuine needs of the Mill and was a device to camouflage the real profit without paying proper taxes. The CIT(A) upheld the Assessing Officer's decision.

2. Justification of the Additional Cane Price as a Business Expenditure:

The assessee argued that the additional cane price was paid due to demands from canegrower members for better compensation in light of increased input costs and to motivate them to continue and expand sugarcane cultivation. The Board of Directors decided to pay Rs. 60 per qtl. for COJ-64 variety and Rs. 56 per qtl. for other varieties. The assessee's counsel emphasized that the expenditure was laid out wholly and exclusively for business purposes, citing precedents where similar additional payments were deemed reasonable and necessary for business operations. The counsel also referenced various legal precedents to support the claim that the expenditure was legitimate and should be allowed as a deduction.

3. Allegations of Tax Avoidance Through Capitalizing the Additional Cane Price:

The Revenue argued that the additional cane price was a device to increase the share capital of the cooperative society without paying taxes. It was pointed out that out of the Rs. 20 per qtl. increase, Rs. 18 was used for raising share capital, and only Rs. 2 was paid in cash to the canegrowers. The Revenue contended that there were no compelling business considerations for the price increase, especially since the decision was made towards the end of the crushing season and other sugar mills in the area were obtaining sugarcane at the minimum price. The Revenue emphasized that the entire exercise was aimed at tax avoidance.

Tribunal's Findings:

The Tribunal examined the facts and submissions in detail. It noted that the assessee's profit declarations and the pattern of sugarcane cultivation did not justify the substantial increase in the cane price. The Tribunal found no evidence of a threat from canegrowers that would necessitate the price increase. It concluded that the additional price of Rs. 20 per qtl. was not wholly and exclusively for business purposes and was excessive and unreasonable. The Tribunal allowed only Rs. 2 per qtl. as a reasonable business expenditure and disallowed the remaining Rs. 18 per qtl., which was capitalized.

Conclusion:

The appeal was partly allowed. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to work out the exact disallowance based on the findings that only Rs. 2 per qtl. was allowable as a deduction for business purposes, and the remaining Rs. 18 per qtl. was disallowed as it was deemed to be for extra-commercial purposes and a device to avoid taxes.

← Previous Next →