TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (5) TMI 363
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssessment year 2009-10 on the grounds, inter alia, that :- "1. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) is justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 2,24,90,645/- made on account of difference in the sales price of sugar between that of the assessee and of another entity located in the same area and adopting the average rate of sugar sold by that entity for determining the sale value of sugar sold by the assessee. 2. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) is justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 2,11,04,197/- made on account of low yield of sugar. 3. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the ca....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....should not be applied. The AR of the assessee relied upon his account books and has not preferred to furnish any additional explanation. The AO by applying the average selling rate and yield of sugar of Ramala Sahakari Chini Mills Ltd. came to the conclusion that if the fixed price of the sugar and the price of the sugar taken into account, the average sale price of the sugar sold by the assessee should have been similar to the sale price of Ramala Sahakari Chini Mills Ltd. and thereby made an addition of Rs. 2,24,90,645/- i.e. on account of difference of sale price. Similarly, the AO made the comparison of per quintal yield of the sugarcane of the assessee with Ramala Sahakari Chini Mills Ltd. and noticed the difference of yield to the ext....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he ld. CIT (A) by way of filing the appeal who has allowed the appeal. Feeling aggrieved, the revenue has come up before the Tribunal by way of filing the present appeal. 5. We have heard the ld. Authorized Representatives of the parties to the appeal, gone through the documents relied upon and orders passed by the revenue authorities below in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case. GROUNDS NO.1 & 2 6. Undisputedly, during the assessment proceedings, audited books of account have been produced and perused by the AO but have not disputed the same on any ground whatsoever. So far as the question of making comparison by the AO recording different rate of sale of sugar by the assessee as well as Ramala Sahakari Chini Mill....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f sugar as made by the AO is concerned, the same has again been made by the AO on the basis of assumptions and estimation without taking into consideration the actual and factual position of both the entities i.e. assessee's sugar mill and Ramala Sahakari Chini Mills Ltd.. The AO brought on record the fact that the assessee has shown the yield at 8.3% from 34.48 quintal of sugarcane as against yield of 8.33% from crushing of 50.03 quintal of sugarcane. 9. We are of the considered view that yield of any crop of one farmer cannot be compared with the yield of another farmer though adjoining to each other because it may depend on numerous factors, like, quality of seeds, pesticides and manures used, day-to day look after of the crop, etc. T....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t financial institutions. However, CIT (A) in the impugned order, by relying upon the finding returned by the CIT (A), Noida vide order dated 26.08.2013 in assessee's own case qua the assessment year 2008-09, held that the institution of Uttar Pradesh Government are not covered in the definition of public financial institution and thereby deleted the addition made by the AO. 12. Undisputedly, the assessee in Schedule - C of the balance sheet has shown the interest accrued and due but not paid as under:- Shakkar Vishesh Nidhi Rs.1,18,29,590/- State Govt. Loan Rs.5,65,34,280/- UP Cooperative Sugar Factories Federation Ltd. Rs.1,67,31,128/- Total Rs.8,50,94,998/- 13. Now, the sole question f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing such loan or borrowing." As the interest in question is payable to Govt. of India and the statement of UP Government, section 43(B)(d) does not apply. Hence we dismiss this ground." 15. No ground has come up before us to depart from the findings returned by the coordinate Bench in the aforesaid case and moreover Shakkar Vishesh Nidhi, State Govt. Loan and UP Cooperative Sugar Factories Federation Ltd. do not fall under the definition of financial institution so as to attract the provisions contained u/s 43B(d) by any stretch of imagination. So finding no illegality or infirmity in the findings returned by the ld. CIT (A), ground no.3 is determined against the revenue. GROUND NO.4 16. The AO made an addition of Rs. 14,3....