9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (6) TMI 745X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... any inquiry before coming to a contrary conclusion and that he should not have a reasonable belief for forming the opinion that the income chargeable to tax had escaped the assessment. Also see Shri Narmada Khand Udhyog Sahakari Mandli Ltd. vs. Income Tax Officer [2016 (2) TMI 385 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT ] - Decided in favour of assessee - SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4014 of 2016 - - - Dated:- 14-6-2016 - MR. AKIL KURESHI AND MR. A.J. SHASTRI, JJ. FOR THE PETITIONER : MR MANISH J SHAH, ADVOCATE FOR THE RESPONDENT : MR SUDHIR M MEHTA, ADVOCATE (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI) The petitioner is a sugar co-operative society and has challenged the notice for re-opening assessment issued by the Assessing Officer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cane price was determined by the assessee after completion of financial year and therefore, the entries made in the books of accounts of assessee reflecting expenditure incurred by way of purchases are not real time entries. It is further noticed that the assessee has not made provision at the end of the accounting period (31st March) but the excess payment made after the financial year by passing a Resolution of the Board. Thus, in this way, the assessee has debited entire cost of purchase after completion of financial year. Ordinarily what would be debited would be the present crystalised liability while a provision would be made in the books for contingencies (I.e the additional cane price to be given). It seems from the balance-sheet ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ermined by the Central Government is escaped assessment within the meaning of section 147 of the I.T. Act,1961. 2. However, the central question of taxability of income of the sugarcane in the background of reasons recorded had come up before this Court on couple of occasions in the past. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of Shri Chalthan Vibhag Khand Udylog Mandli Ltd. vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, reported in 376 ITR 419, had quashed the notice for re-opening which was based on identical reasons, it was held that the difference between the price to be paid to cane growers and the purchase price declared by the Government under sugar Sugar Control Order cannot be said to be by way of distribution of profits. It was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
