9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (6) TMI 399X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... doubted by the Revenue. Before us, Revenue has not pointed out to any fallacy in the findings of the CIT(A). In such a situation, we find no reason to interfere with the order of the CIT(A) and thus this ground raised by the Revenue is dismissed. Disallowance of sugarcane advance which was written off as not recoverable and was debited to Profit Loss account - CIT-A deleted the addition - HELD THAT:- CIT(A), while deleting the addition, has given a finding that the aforesaid amount represented advances given by the assessee to members but which have never been debited to the Profit Loss account as a charge against the profit in earlier years and therefore it cannot be added as income. Before us, no fallacy in the finding of the CIT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ara- 3/10006/2011-12 granted substantial relief to the assessee. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), Revenue is now in appeal before the Tribunal and has raised the following grounds:- 1. Addition on account of disallowance of purchase of sugarcane, as prior period expenses. 2. Addition on account of disallowance of sugarcane advance which was written off as not recoverable and was debited to Profit Loss account. 4. Ground No.1 is with respect to the disallowance of Rs. 15,57,41,617/- being prior period expenses deleted by the CIT(A). 4.1 During the course of assessment proceedings and on perusing the Internal Auditor s Report, Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee has claimed an aggregating expenditure of Rs. 27,4 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e, has given a finding that the actual FMP of the sugarcane was decided on 05.12.2007 which was much after the completion of sugar season of 2006-07 and therefore the payment made during the current assessment year cannot be termed as prior period expenses. He has further given a finding that the genuineness of payment to the farmers has not been doubted by the Revenue. He thereafter, by relying on the various decisions cited in the order, noted that the assessee operates in the agriculture sector and deals in seasonal crop and the price of which is controlled by the Government and the expenses incurred by the assessee in procurement of sugarcane has not been doubted by the Revenue. He, therefore, directed the Assessing Officer to delete th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... us this ground raised by the Revenue is dismissed. 5. Ground No.2 is with respect to the addition on account of disallowance of sugarcane advance amounting to Rs. 9,01,21,084/- made by AO but deleted by CIT(A). 5.1 During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer, on perusing the details, noticed that the assessee has shown sugarcane advance amounting to Rs. 9,01,21,084/- in the Balance Sheet as on 31.03.2007. Assessing Officer held that false base has been created by separating the accounts as on 31.03.2007. He accordingly held the amount to be not allowable and accordingly disallowed Rs. 9,01,21,084/-. 5.2 Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
