9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 156X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... upon the supplies of sugarcane. For the above reasons, we find, there are no merits in the appeal. - Decided in favour of assessee - T.C.(Appeal) No.271 of 2005 - - - Dated:- 10-4-2018 - T. S. Sivagnanam And N. Seshasayee, JJ. For Appellant : Mr. T. Ravikumar For Respondent : No appearance JUDGMENT ( Judgment of the Court was delivered by T. S. Sivagnanam, J. ) Heard Mr.T.Ravikumar, learned counsel for the appellant. Though the respondent has been served and their name is also printed in the cause list, none appears on behalf of them. 2. This appeal is directed against the order dated 30.11.2004, passed by the ITAT in I.T.A.No.2132(Mds)/2004, for the assessment year 1990-91. 3. This tax case appeal has been ad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ompleting the assessment under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ), by order dated 19.03.1993, held that the additional price paid by the assessee to the cane growers is only an advance recoverable under the terms agreed to in the previous year and it will not be possible to recover the excess payment contrary to the undertaking given by the Sugarcane Growers Association on behalf of its members and therefore, the excess price debited in the accounts was deleted. 5. The assessee preferred appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) -II, who by order dated 28.05.1993, allowed the appeal pointing out that the issue has to be viewed from the point of view of the assessee, as it cannot ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n entire agreement with the view expressed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) as affirmed by the Tribunal. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), rightly viewed the matter from the point of view of the assessee considering the nature of business carried on by them. Further, mere use of the word advance in the letter of the Sugarcane Growers Association by itself would not change the character of the payment, especially when the amount paid was an ascertained liability and the assessee was following mercantile system of accounting and the payment was also done during the relevant accounting year. Furthermore, the Tribunal rightly observed that the assessee could not avoid this payment in view of the business expediency, as the en ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
