Cooperative sugar mill pricing: only realised profit passed to members may be taxed as appropriation of profit.

In cooperative sugar mills, only the element of realised profit actually passed on to members can be treated as appropriation of profit. The statutory minimum cane price under clause 3 of the Sugar Cane (Control) Order, 1966 remains deductible, while any profit component embedded in the final price under clause 5A requires separate treatment; payments to non-members may also require examination under section 40A(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. For concessional sugar sales to members, the differential from market or levy price is merely a loss of potential profit unless the sale is below cost price, so the actual cost price, including direct and indirect costs, must first be determined before any addition is made.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the addition made on account of excessive cane price paid to members and non-members was sustainable; (ii) Whether the addition on account of sale of sugar to members at concessional price was sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether the addition made on account of excessive cane price paid to members and non-members was sustainable.

Analysis: The issue was held to be covered by the Supreme Court's exposition on purchase of sugarcane under clauses 3 and 5A of the Sugar Cane (Control) Order, 1966. Only the component representing profit embedded in the final price fixed under clause 5A could be treated as appropriation of profit. The statutory minimum price under clause 3 remained fully deductible. In the case of payments to non-members, the matter had to be examined separately under the principle reflected in section 40A(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Conclusion: The addition was not finally sustained and the matter was remitted to the Assessing Officer for fresh determination in accordance with law, partly in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the addition on account of sale of sugar to members at concessional price was sustainable.

Analysis: The concessional sale of sugar to members was distinguished from appropriation of profit. The differential between market or levy price and concessional price was treated as loss of potential profit, not as profit already earned and distributed, unless the sale price fell below the cost price. The Assessing Officer was required to first ascertain the actual cost price, including direct and indirect costs, before determining whether any amount represented appropriation of profit.

Conclusion: The addition was set aside and the matter was remitted for fresh examination on the basis of cost price, partly in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded only to the extent of remand, and both disputed additions were sent back for reconsideration under the governing legal principles.

Ratio Decidendi: In cooperative sugar mills, only the component of realised profit that is actually passed on to members can be taxed as appropriation of profit; a mere loss of potential profit does not by itself justify an addition unless the transaction results in sale below cost price.

---