9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (3) TMI 678X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - Held that:- Apart from giving one case of Kisan Sahkari Chini Mill, Puranpur, no other basis has been indicated by the Assessing Officer for doubting the yield percentage reported by the assessee. In this regard, this is very important to note that production of sugar is directly under the control and supervision of Excise Department and this is not the case of the Assessing Officer that any adverse finding has been recorded by the Excise Department. In the absence of any material brought on record by the Assessing Officer indicating sugar production suppression, thus no reason to interfere in the order of CIT(A)- Decided in favour of assessee. Addition u/s 43B - dispute on account of cess on tax - CIT(A) deleted the addition - Held that:- Amount of cess is same i.e. ₹ 70,13,524/- at the beginning and end of the year. When this amount was outstanding on the first day of the accounting year, no addition is called for in the present year although the assessee would have been eligible for deduction if any payment would have been made by him in the present year. Therefore, the addition made by the Assessing Officer is not on scientific basis. Since the order of CIT(A) is cr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce any evidence during the course of assessment proceedings. 3. Learned D.R. of the Revenue supported the assessment order. He also submitted that on page No. 2 of the assessment order, the Assessing Officer has noted a comparable case also and therefore, the order of CIT(A) should be reversed and that of the Assessing Officer should be restored. Learned AR of the assessee supported the order of CIT (A). 4. We have considered the rival submissions. We find that this issue was decided by CIT(A) by making following observations on page No. 3 of his order, which are reproduced below for the sake of ready reference:- I have taken into consideration the submission of the AR for the appellant and perused the assessment order. It is seen that the AO has referred to Annexure 11 of quantitative details in respect of production of Baggasse. The main product sugar is an excisable commodity, and the production is under the control of Excise Department. All the Excise records/return prescribed by the Excise Department were maintained by the assessee and no defect had been pointed out by the Excise department. RT- 7(C ) the report being maintained by the assessee as per excise Rules ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ficer on this basis alone that in the case of Kisan Sahkari Chini Mill, Puranpur, yield of sugar was disclosed at 9.15% whereas the assessee has shown the yield of sugar at 8.74%. Apart from giving one case of Kisan Sahkari Chini Mill, Puranpur, no other basis has been indicated by the Assessing Officer for doubting the yield percentage reported by the assessee. In this regard, this is very important to note that production of sugar is directly under the control and supervision of Excise Department and this is not the case of the Assessing Officer that any adverse finding has been recorded by the Excise Department. In the absence of any adverse finding by Excise Department and also in the absence of any material brought on record by the Assessing Officer indicating sugar production suppression, we do not find any reason to interfere in the order of CIT(A) on this issue also. Ground No. 2 is also rejected. 8. Ground No. 3 of the Revenue s appeal, reads as under: (3) That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is not justified in deleting the addition of ₹ 2,44,09,510/- under section 43 B of the I.T.Act,1961. 9. Learned D. R. of the Revenue supported the as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t this matter should go to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh decision by way of passing speaking and reasoned order. We, therefore, set aside the order of CIT(A) on this issue and restore the matter back to his file for fresh decision. The CIT(A) should pass a speaking and reasoned order after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to both sides. Ground No. 3 is allowed for statistical purposes. 11. Ground No. 4 of the Revenue s appeal, reads as under: (4) That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is not justified in deleting the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer u/s 36(1)(va) of the I. T. Act, on account of late deposit of employees deduction to Provident Fund for Factory and Federation Staff. 12. Learned D. R. of the Revenue supported the assessment order whereas learned A. R. of the assessee supported the order of learned CIT(A). 13. We have considered the rival submissions. We find that a clear finding is given by learned CIT(A) that the entire amount of P.F. contribution was deposited by the assessee before the due date of filing of return of income and therefore, the same is allowable as per the amended provisions of the Act. Therefore ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
