9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (2) TMI 21X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unted for on actual receipt basis. Counsel for the applicant has not been able to controvert the factual position as noticed above. It has not been shown to us that in subsequent years, the method followed by the assessee has not been accepted by the Revenue. In this view of the matter, we are satisfied that the view taken by the Tribunal is reasonable and does not require any interference. Accordingly, we answer the question in the affirmative, i.e., against the Revenue - - - - - Dated:- 15-2-2005 - Judge(s) : N. K. SUD., SATISH KUMAR MITTAL. JUDGMENT The judgment of the court was delivered by N.K. Sud J. - In pursuance of the directions of this court, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (for short "th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssing authority, the sum and substance of the scheme was that in case there was a loss, the Government of India was to give subsidy/reimbursement and in case there was excessive realisation, the excess was to be paid to the Central Government. In accordance with the above scheme, the assessee used to prepare a periodical statement of subsidies to be claimed from the Food Corporation of India and the Food Corporation of India used to make payment in accordance with the statements submitted by the assessee. During the accounting period relevant to the assessment year under consideration, various sugar mills challenged the reasonableness of the notified prices and the assessee had to pay an additional sum of Rs. 12,43,912.80. The additional am ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ess price of Rs. 12,43,913 is to be debited to the trading account or not. Even though the amount was disputed by the sugar mills with the Government, the assessee was unaffected by this dispute, as whatever the additional purchase price was chargeable from the assessee, it was reimbursable by the Government of India. We have, therefore, to consider whether the additional subsidy of Rs. 12,43,913 is includible in the income of the assessee or not taking into consideration the method of accounting following by it. We have already pointed out that this is the first year of assessment in the case of the assessee. It is, therefore, open to it to follow any method of accounting. The assessing authority has not mentioned in the assessment order a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
