2015 (7) TMI 216

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nd 6, as framed in the memo of appeal. Our answers on these questions are as follows:- Question No.1:- Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally justified in upholding the order of CIT (A) who deleted the disallowance of interest not charged on debit balance? The issue has been discussed by the ITAT in paragraph 49 and 50 in which it has given reasons for upholding the findings of CIT (A). The issue is also covered Inter party in ITR No.65 of 1996 CIT v. Dhampur Sugar Mills Ltd. decided on 28.04.2005 in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. The issue is decided accordingly. Question No.4:- Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally justified in....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e parties were made at higher rate. In view of the same he applied the rate of Rs. 18/- per qtl. in respect of sales made in November & December, 1987 and at the rate of Rs. 12.50 per qtl. on sales made in other months. Accordingly, the addition of Rs. 10,56,574/- was made on account of alleged suppression of sales price. 53. Aggrieved the assessee preferred first appeal before the Ld. CIT (A). It was submitted before him on behalf of the assessee that the addition made was arbitrary and based on conjecture and surmises in complete disregard of the facts and materials on record. M/s U.P. Straw & Agro Products Ltd. was a public limited company regularly assessed to tax by the same AO. No adverse materials were found by the AO in the transa....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... lower than Rs. 10/- per qtl. which were the normal business variations which could not be made as basis for adverse conclusion. The Ld. CIT (A) pointed out names of seven parties to whom sales were made at rates lower than the rate of Rs. 10/- per qtl. which the AO had not taken into account while considering reasonableness of the rate of Rs. 10/- per qtl. charged from M/s U.P. Straw & Agro Products Ltd. 55. The Ld. CIT (A) further observed that there was no material on record to show that the assesse had charged higher rate than Rs. 10/- per qtl. from M/s U.P. Straw & Agro Products Ltd. and therefore the impugned addition by the AO was entirely based on conjecture and surmises. With the above observations, the Ld. CIT (A) held that the ....