2025 (1) TMI 1737 - AT - Income Tax

Sale of sugar at concessional rate: AO lacked jurisdiction for the assessment year listed, leading to dismissal of Revenue appeal.

Sale of sugar at concessional rate was contested where the AO relied on an ITAT order to reopen assessments. The tribunal's listing did not include the ... Sale of sugar at concessional rate - CIT(DR) in the written submission submitted that it is evident that the sale of sugar by the sugar factories to their members is not a discretionary decision of the factory, but is regulated under section 79(A) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 - AO carefully examined the matter based on the practices adopted by the State Government as per its Policy and made an addition for the Differential Amount between the Market Price and the Concessional Rate - AO observed that the issue of excess cane price paid to farmers and sale of sugar at concessional rate has been set-aside by ITAT to the Assessing Officer for denovo adjudication HELD THAT:- As perused the Hon’ble ITAT Pune’s Order in [2019 (5) TMI 1776 - ITAT PUNE] observed that nowhere assessee’s case for A.Y.2006-07 appears. The assessee’s case for A.Y.2007-08 and A.Y.2008-09 appear in the said list. It means, Hon’ble ITAT Pune has not set-aside the issue to the Assessing Officer for A.Y.2006- 07. Therefore, the Assessing Officer has erred in assuming the jurisdiction for A.Y.2006-07 by referring to the ITAT Order dated 01.05.2019 mentioned above. In these facts and circumstances of the case, the Question of sale of sugar at concessional rate for A.Y.2006-07 had attained Finality in the case of Assessee. Therefore, Assessing Officer has no jurisdiction to pass the assessment order dated 28.09.2021 qua sale of sugar at concessional rate. Accordingly, all the Grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue pertaining to sale of sugar at concessional rate are dismissed. Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Issues: Whether the Assessing Officer had jurisdiction to make an addition for sale of sugar at concessional rate for A.Y.2006-07 when the issue had been previously decided/finalised in the assessee's case.Analysis: The Tribunal examined the ITAT Pune consolidated order relied upon by the Assessing Officer and compared the list of matters set aside by that order with the assessee's assessment years. It found that A.Y.2006-07 was not included in the consolidated order of 01.05.2019 and that the Assessing Officer therefore erred in treating that order as having set aside the issue for A.Y.2006-07. Having determined that the issue of sale of sugar at concessional rate for A.Y.2006-07 had attained finality in the assessee's case, the Tribunal concluded that the Assessing Officer lacked jurisdiction to reopen and make the impugned addition for that year.Conclusion: The Assessing Officer had no jurisdiction to make the addition for sale of sugar at concessional rate for A.Y.2006-07; the Revenue's grounds relating to that issue are dismissed and the appeal is dismissed in favour of the assessee.