9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (8) TMI 1288X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Y. 2003-04): 2. Ground no. 1: This ground relates to the claim of the assessee for Rs. 410519/- and Rs. 21437/- being the amount of interest on excess sugar price realized for the year 1978-79 and 1979-80 respectively. 2.1. During assessment proceedings for A.Y. 2003-04 the assessee had made additional claim to the effect that interest accrued on deposits of Excess Levy Sugar price for the years 1978-79 and 1979-80 amounting to Rs. 4,10,519/- and Rs. 21,437/- relating to interest liability on excess sugar price realized for seasons prior to 1974-75 be not treated as its income for the year under consideration. It was stated that issue had been allowed in the case of the assessee by the ITAT in A.Y. 1984-85 and 1985-86. However, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee claimed exclusion of interest accrued amounting to Rs. 4,80,894/- from its taxable income. The AO disallowed the claim by observing that such claim had been disallowed by the AO in A.Y. 2002-03. 3.2. In appeal, the CIT(A) directed to the Assessing Officer to verify the facts and decide the issue in accordance with the direction of ITAT for A.Y. 1999-2000 in its order dated 9-3-2007. 3.3. The learned counsel for the assessee submitted before us that the issue in question is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by para nos. 19 to 22 of Tribunal s order dated 9-3-2007 in assessee s own case for A.Y. 1999-2000 in ITA no. 5555/Del/03 5571/Del/03 and another order dated 16-3-2007 in ITA no. 2866/Del/2004 for A.Y. 2000-01. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hand, pointed out that the assessee has also taken up the mater before the CIT(A) and till the disposal of that application the said ground is premature. 5.3. We have heard rival submissions and gone through the record. We agree with the learned DR that the ground as raised before us is premature. However, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case we direct that the assessee must approach the CIT(A) and the CIT(A) must dispose off the said misc. application if it is still pending and on disposal the assessee is free to challenge the said order before us, if he is still aggrieved. ITA no. 1785/Del/2009 ( Revenue appeal for A.Y. 2003-04): 6. Ground no. 1: This ground has been raised against the action of the CIT(A) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... counsel for the assessee submitted that the issue in question is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by para nos. 27 to 30 of Tribunal s order dated 9-3-2007 in ITA nos. 5555 and 5571/Del/03 in assessee s own case for A.Y. 1999-2000. 7.4. We have heard rival submissions and gone through Tribunal s order, referred to by the learned counsel for the assessee. The Tribunal has decided identical issue in favour of the assessee. No change in facts and circumstances for the assessment year in question has been pointed out. The order of CIT(A) being in conformity with the abovementioned order of the Tribunal we see no reason to interfere. Ground is rejected. 8. In the result assessee s appeal is partly allowed and the appeal filed by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
