9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (4) TMI 1074X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the Department and therefore, to make any change in the system, we have to give effect in value of opening stock also. Considering the entire facts and smallness of amount involved, we feel that this defect in the system of accounting followed by the assessee can be ignored because the amount involved is small and to rectify the same, change will be required in several years. We, therefore, decline to interfere in the order of CIT(A) on this issue. - Decided against revenue. Addition on account of molasses in Kachha pit - CIT(A) deleted the addition - Held that:- It is stated by the Assessing Officer on page No. 2 of the statements of facts that the assessee has valued the closing stock of molesses weighing 11,205 quintals @Rs.11/- per unit, which is substantially low in comparison to molasses kept in tanks. The claim of the assessee is that the molasses stored in Kachcha pit is not saleable. This is by now a settled position of law that valuation of closing stock can be at cost or market price, whichever is lower. This fact has to be accepted that molasses stored in Kachcha pit is defective and is not comparable with the molasses stored in tanks. Hence, the addition made by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was deducted on sale of sugar and TDS was deposited with Central Government. This finding of CIT(A) could not be controverted and hence, we decline to interfere in the order of CIT(A).- Decided against revenue. Addition u/s 36(1)(va) on account of late deposit of employee’s deduction of P.F. and on account of G.I.S. recoveries from employee's late deposited u/s 36(1)(va)- CIT(A) deleted the addition - Held that:- This issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the Tribunal decision in which the Tribunal has followed the judgment rendered in the case of CIT vs. Manoj Kumar Singh [2012 (5) TMI 176 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT]. Respectfully following this Tribunal decision, we decline to interfere in the order of CIT(A).- Decided against revenue. Addition on account of non refundable deposit - CIT(A) deleted the addition - Held that:- This issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the judgment of Commissioner of Income-tax Vs Siddheshwar Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. [2004 (9) TMI 6 - SUPREME Court ] and Commissioner of Income-tax Vs Ramala Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd. as reported in (2005 (3) TMI 82 - ALLAHABAD High Court ).- Decided against revenue. Addition on account of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lus baggase, if any, is accounted for without valuing the closing stock at the year end and this is clearly mentioned in notes forming part of the accounts and there is no change in the system of treatment of valuation of baggase during the year since inception. He has also noted that most of the baggase products are always consumed in the boiler for generation of steam and running the plant. He has also noted that the assessee was having opening stock of 4,400 quintals as on 01/04/2004 and therefore, if the addition made in the closing stock has to be sustained then the adjustment in value of opening stock of baggase should also have to be allowed by the Assessing Officer. We also find that in the statement of facts on page No. 2 filed by the Assessing Officer, it is stated that opening stock of baggase has been shown at 4,400 quintals and after deducting sales of 5,107 quintals, closing stock of baggase remains at 3,262 quintals. The Assessing Officer has made addition on account of closing stock but he has not given any credit for opening stock, which was not valued by the assessee since the assessee is following this system of accounting that closing stock of baggase is not val ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the order of the learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) is erroneous in law and on facts in deleting the addition of ₹ 3,93,417/- on account of bond money payable. 14. Learned D.R. of the Revenue supported the assessment order. He also drawn our attention to page No. 3 of the statement of facts filed before us along with page No. 30 of the paper book. 15. Learned A.R. of the assessee supported the order of CIT(A). 16. We find that on page No. 30 of the paper book, there is opening balance of ₹ 13,01,473.10 as on 01/04/2004 and there is deduction of ₹ 3,93,417/- on 31/03/2005 but there is no payment against this opening balance. When this position is considered along with the facts that the assessee has not furnished any detail regarding grower-wise list of money payable, it has to be accepted that such payment is not made by the assessee and the growers are also not claiming the same. Hence, to this extent of the amount deducted from cane price payable to growers, the assessee has not incurred the expenses but debited the same to the profit loss account in the form of cane price paid and created a liability in the books for which the assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ₹ 7,16,196/ made u/s 40(a)(ia) of I.T.Act, 1961 on account of commission payment. 23. Learned D.R. of the Revenue supported the assessment order and drawn our attention to page No. 4 of the statement of facts whereas learned A.R. of the assessee supported the order of CIT(A). 24. We have considered the rival submissions, perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. This issue is decided by CIT(A) as per following para on page 8 of his order, which is reproduced below: I have perused assessment order, gone through the submissions and also the paper book filed in appeal before me. It is seen that the copy of account of commission to sugar selling agents, vouchers and certificate of UP Cooperative Sugar Factories Federation for deduction of TDS on sale of sugar, details and challans for TDS deposit had been filed which stand at page no. 38 to 39 and 40 to 50 of the paper book. In view of the circumstances of the case, the addition made by the learned Assessing Officer is deleted. 25. From the above para of CIT(A), we find that a clear finding is given by CIT(A) that as per certificate of UP Co-operative Sugar F ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er of Income-tax Vs Ramala Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd. as reported in 278 ITR 670 (All). 31. We have considered the rival submissions, perused the material available on record and the judgment cited by Learned A.R. of the assessee. We find that the issue is covered in favour of the assessee by these two judgments cited by learned A.R. of the assessee. Hence, respectfully following these judgments, we decline to interfere in the order of CIT(A). Accordingly, this ground of Revenue is rejected. 32. Ground No. 10 is as under: 10. That the order of the learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) is erroneous in law and on facts in deleting the addition of ₹ 9,14,555/- on account of payment of subscription to federation u/s 40(a)(ia) of I.T.Act, 1961. 33. Learned D.R. of the Revenue supported the assessment order whereas learned A.R. of the assessee supported the order of CIT(A). He also submitted that this issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the Tribunal decision rendered in the case of this very assessee for assessment year 2006- 07, 2007-08 and 2008-09 in I.T.A. No.406 to 408/Lkw/2013. He submitted a copy of this order and drawn our attention to para 10. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
