2002 (2) TMI 336 - AT - Income Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Computation of capital gains on the sale of Kashipur Sugar Unit.
2. Treatment of driage of sugarcane.
3. Disallowance of interest on excess levy sugar price and additional sugarcane price.
4. Double disallowance of Rs. 74,991.
5. Value of land and building, plant, and machinery.
6. Wrong deduction on account of doubtful debts, central subsidy, and school building.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Computation of Capital Gains on the Sale of Kashipur Sugar Unit:
The assessee sold its Kashipur unit for Rs. 4.40 crores. The CIT(A) directed the AO to compute tax on this figure instead of Rs. 8,57,55,945. The assessee argued that the sale was not a slump sale and that individual assets' values were determinable. The Tribunal agreed with the assessee, noting that the sale was not a slump sale and that the values of individual assets were ascertainable. The Tribunal directed the AO to apply the provisions of Section 50(1) and (2) for depreciable assets and Section 48 for non-depreciable assets.

2. Treatment of Driage of Sugarcane:
The assessee claimed driage at 58,321 quintals, which was higher than the previous year's 29,120 quintals. The AO added Rs. 19,51,000, which was upheld by the CIT(A). The Tribunal found that the comparative figures were not properly considered and remanded the issue to the AO for fresh adjudication.

3. Disallowance of Interest on Excess Levy Sugar Price and Additional Sugarcane Price:
The AO disallowed Rs. 6,92,683 for interest on excess levy sugar price and Rs. 74,991 for additional sugarcane price. The CIT(A) upheld the disallowance due to the lack of supporting orders from earlier years. The Tribunal restored the issue to the AO for fresh consideration, noting that similar disallowances were deleted in earlier years.

4. Double Disallowance of Rs. 74,991:
The assessee claimed that Rs. 74,991 was not debited to the P&L account but was claimed in the computation of income. The Tribunal restored the issue to the AO to verify the facts and ensure no double disallowance.

5. Value of Land and Building, Plant, and Machinery:
The AO added the difference between the fair market value and the sale consideration of land and building to the profit on the sale of fixed assets. The Tribunal noted that the fair market value of the land as on 1st April 1981 was not properly ascertained and remanded the issue to the AO for fresh consideration.

6. Wrong Deduction on Account of Doubtful Debts, Central Subsidy, and School Building:
The Department argued that the assessee claimed wrong deductions on account of doubtful debts, central subsidy, and school building. The Tribunal noted that this ground did not arise from the CIT(A)'s order and rejected it.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal partly for statistical purposes and remanded several issues to the AO for fresh consideration. The Department's appeal was also partly allowed for statistical purposes.