TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2005 (8) TMI 701
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of this appeal are as under :- 3.1 The appellant is a cooperative society and carried out the business of manufacturing sugar from crushing sugarcane purchased from its member farmers. 3.2 After the scrutiny of TDS return as filed by the appellant, the Assessing Officer noticed that the society was not deducting tax from the payment made to mukadams and transporters for cutting and transporting sugarcane from the sugarcane fields of the member farmers to the gate of the factory. In order to verify the above referred facts, a survey under section 133A of the Income-tax Act was carried out by the Assessing Officer on 6-1-2003 and during the survey proceedings it was found that the appellant was not deducting the tax according to the provision of section 194C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 from the aforesaid payment made to mukadams and transporters. The Assessing Officer had found that during the year under consideration, total payment of ₹ 13,73,67,269 was made to mukadams and transporters for cutting, harvesting and transporting the sugarcane from the fields to the factory gate without deducting the tax under section 194C of the Income-tax Act and in view of these facts he had....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on behalf of the member farmers though it is an unregistered body. (l)The truck owners are the farmers and their incomes are exempt under section 2 of the Income-tax Act. (m)The mukadams receiving the cutting charges for the labourers engaged by them are having very low income and out of that no TDS is required to be deducted by the appellant. 3.3 The above stand taken by the appellant for non-deduction of tax in accordance with the provisions of section 194C of the Income-tax Act was not accepted by the Assessing Officer and for that he has had made elaborate discussion in the order passed under section 201 and 201(1A) of the Income-tax Act from pages 5 to 35. As referred above, it was submitted by the Authorised Representative of the appellant before the Assessing Officer that a Samiti of some member farmers was formed and these persons volunteered to look after the work of cutting and transportation of sugarcane from the fields to the mill rate on behalf of the other member farmers. According to the Assessing Officer, this Samiti which was known as Sabhasad/Zonal Samiti used to receive money in the form of advances from the appellant to incur the same on behalf of the member ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of farmer members in the books of the appellant and the same is quoted as below: "Further, I would like to submit that the system prevailing in sugar industry is such that the gate delivery price payable to sugarcane grower members is used to fix in every crushing season. For example, in season 2001-02 (i.e. from Sept. 2001 to October 2002), the sugarcane price determined in the month of October, 2002 i.e. at the end of the season. However, for the very reason that the sugarcane grower members are always in need of money, the society used to pay in instalments determined on the basis of crushing and recovery of sugarcane, sale proceeds etc. following the instructions of sugar federation of Gujarat as also policy framed by the Government. Accordingly, at the time of payment of instalments towards purchase price payable to members for their supply of sugarcane to the society, the instalment towards harvesting and transport expenses, etc. is also paid to them. It is therefore the payments towards the sugarcane supplied by the members and not for any contract with outsiders. In support of this, the true copy of resolution Nos.8 and 10 dated 12-11-2001 and 7-12-2002 respectively ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....farmers, did not have taxable income and again they were eligible to claim deduction under section 44AE of the Act, i.e., by showing incomes of ₹ 3,500 per month and in that situation also they were not liable to pay tax and, hence, there was no question of deduction of tax on such payments. 3.6 Regarding the payments received by Mukadams for cutting charges on behalf of the labourers engaged by him, it was argued that their income was very low and hence no TDS was required to be made. The Assessing Officer had quoted the reply as made by the appellant before him vide letter dated 11-11-2003 in this regard and the same is given hereunder : "I may add that the labour charges for any crushing season to a single labour is always maximum upto ₹ 7,500 because the other bare necessity such as food, residence, medical treatment are also provided by the farmers out of this instalment through their samiti and therefore, there is no question of tax deduction from payments of harvesting charges under section 194C of the Act. The view of jurisdiction officer is that the payments made to contractors/mukadams are liable of deduction of tax at source. In that eventuality also p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....), the Samiti had ' no entity and recognition under any statute and in this way the existence and entity of the Samiti could not be proved by the appellant and therefore, there was no question of Samiti to be considered as third party. Thus, in view of the Assessing Officer, there were only two parties, i.e., the appellant on the one hand and the mukadams and transporters on the other hand and the payment for the cutting and transportation charges were made by the appellant to the mukadams and transporters in lieu of harvesting and transporting of sugarcane from the fields to the mill gate. In this way, as per the Assessing Officer, there were two parties to constitute the contracts under section 194C of the Income-tax Act. 3.8 Regarding books of account as maintained by the Samiti, it was pointed out by the Assessing Officer that its books of account were maintained as per the sugarcane crushing season of the factory, i.e., written from October to May of the respective year. These books were not written financial year wise, i.e., for the period from April to March and it was also important to note that the books of account of the Samiti was not kept for the period of more than on....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... amount of expenses for the purpose of cutting and transportation and other ancillary charges paid by the appellant through its books of account were income not in the hands of farmers but income of the transporters and mukadams. 3.9 Regarding the affidavits submitted by the appellant on behalf of the farmers, it has been commented by him (the Assessing Officer) that they were all of same nature as far as the contention of these affidavits were concerned and only signatures of the farmers and the details of agricultural land owned by them were different. According to the Assessing Officer, in these affidavits, the place, date, introducer and Notary before whom the farmers signed were the same. According to him (the Assessing Officer), the contents of the affidavit was pertaining to agricultural land holding of farmers, the tradition of sugar factory and discussion about the prime liability of the individual member regarding cutting and transportation of sugarcane up to the factory gate and it was narrated as per the bye laws of the society. He (the Assessing Officer) had further stated that the fact remained that the activities as narrated in affidavits were not conducted by the i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y gate ₹ 300 per M.T. be paid as advance. In the subsequent paragraph, it is resolved that members are supposed to bear the expenditure of cutting and transportation charges, ₹ 165 are to be paid to the members as advance. In support of this, the Authorised Representative has filed the copy of sherdi advance payment voucher which is at the page No.95 in Volume No.1 of record. This voucher envisaged that ₹ 165 per M.T. is paid to the members on 9-7-2002 of a member whose sugarcane is reached to the factory on 18-3-2002. This is very important that the sugarcane of member Shri Pramodkumar Rambhai Patel is reached on 18-3-2002 and the voucher of advance payment at the rate of ₹ 165 per M.T. is prepared/made and payment is shown on 9-7-2002, i.e., after gap of four months period. If ₹ 165 per M.T. is an advance paid to the farmer to meet the expenditure of cutting and transportation charges, then it should have been paid to the farmers before his sugarcane was cut and transported to the factory in 18-03-2002. When the amount of ₹ 165 per M.T. is claimed to have been paid after gap of four months period, it can never be termed as advance. Looking to t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ansporters and mukadams is with samiti, i.e., the agency of sugar mill and not individual member/farmer. The entire work of cutting and transportation done by the contractors and are controlled by sugar mill and samiti and ₹ 165 per M.T. is also charges not decided by individual member/farmer but decided by sugar factory in its resolution No. 8. This is very important that the amount of ₹ 165 decided per M.T. irrespective of distance involved in a particular case. Even this expenditure of cutting and transportation of sugarcane ₹ 165 per M. T. is decided much after goods is transported and used by the sugar factory. It is clear that the debit entries in the books of sugar mill under the head of Sabhasad sherdi advance in lump sum on various dates are the same amounts and dates credited in the books of samiti and from the books of samiti final payments to transporters and mukadams are made. Thus, the sugar factory makes payments to the transporters and mukadams through samiti which is a part of sugar factory only. The surplus in the books of samiti also suggests that no individual farmer/member undertake the task of cutting and harvesting. If individual farmer/memb....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....armer members and also carrying out the work of supervision of transportation of sugarcane to the mill gate. In this view, Zone Samiti was spending the farmers' money while discharging the above mentioned duties, the money was received by it from the appellant on advance basis and finally when the works relating to harvesting and transporting was over at the end of the season, the final account for each farmer was prepared by it and adjustments out of advance received from the mill for such expenses was made by making out the expenses charged from each and every farmer against transport of his sugarcane. In this way according to Authorized Representative, the Samiti used to prepare a final account and after making adjustment of expenses incurred by it, return the balance money to the appellant and after that a final account for each farmer was prepared by the appellant and the payments were made to farmers. He has mentioned that Samiti maintained its books of account keeping all minute details of expenses incurred by in respect of farmers and its books of account were subject to audit. In this argument, by referring to various bye-laws of the appellant and which were binding on the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s regarding arrangement of labourers by mukadams, majuri barthi karchha, such as, food expenses, medical expenses and insurance expenses for the labourers were incurred by the Samiti and the appellant was nowhere responsible for the same. 11.4 Further, a remand report was received from the Assessing Officer and a copy of the same was given to the appellant for its comments and in response to that a submission was again made by it on 6-10-2004. In his remand letter, the Assessing Officer has categorically stated that by way of submission of the paper book, no new submission has been made and therefore, no new facts were brought to the surface. Again in the report he has stated that the detailed discussion has already been made with regard to the papers submitted by the appellant while finalizing the order under section 201 and 201(1A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and, therefore, to avoid repetition of the same, no comments were required to be made and thus, his stand remains the same as was taken by him at the time of passing of above order. But at the same time, in his report, he has discussed in brief about the applicability of the provisions of section 194C in the case of the app....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... after the works of Samiti were the employees of the appellant company and they were at its pay roll. 11.5 In response to the remand report of the Assessing Officer, it was replied by the Authorized Representative that he (Assessing Officer) did not consider the documents contained in the paper book in the right perspectives and repeatedly held the same view which was held by him while passing the order under section 201 and 201(1A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. It has been mentioned by the Authorized Representative that it was very difficult for an individual farmer to deal with the problem of harvesting and transporting the sugarcane from the field to the mills gate and therefore, for a collective dealing with the appellant, the mukadams and the transporters, they created this Zone Samiti for the sake of their convenience and therefore the view of the Assessing Officer treating the Zone Samiti as an agent of the appellant is not correct. He has further mentioned that there was a written contract of sale of sugarcane between the farmers and the appellant regarding cutting and harvesting the sugarcane and transporting the same to the gate of the factory and for fulfilling the same,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sed by the assessee and ultimately dismissed the assessee's appeals by observing under:- "12. I have carefully considered the findings of the Assessing Officer as referred above along with the remand report submitted by him and also went through the submission as made by the Authorized Representatives of the appellant company and the arguments made by them before me. After perusing the plethora of evidences and details as filed by the appellant, it is seen that no basis has been provided by the appellant for forming the Zone Samiti to handle the onerous job of arranging harvesting and transportation of sugarcane on behalf of the member farmers. It is seen that there was no written bye laws or rules on the basis of which such Zone Samiti was formed. It is also the fact that the appellant has carried out its business for years and as per the submission, it is clear that in every season the Zone Samiti, perhaps, was assigned this kind of work. It was also not been stated that what was the responsibilities assigned to each member of the Samiti, what was the basis of selecting the members of the Samiti amongst the old lot of member farmers. It is also seen that all the people who ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....here is no mention of any Zone Samiti in the Rules which could be given the task of organizing such activities. It has been clearly pointed out by the Assessing Officer after referring the statements of some member farmers that vouchers of expenses were though signed by them but they were never paid the amounts in lieu of this to disburse the expenses for harvesting and transportation of sugarcane. In this regard the findings of the Assessing Officer regarding the affidavits filed by the farmers appear to be acceptable. In his order, the Assessing Officer stated that the farmers have given affidavits stating to abide by the rules and bye laws of the society regarding growing and harvesting and transportation of sugarcane to the mill gate of the appellant but in practice, they never followed the same and therefore, the contents of the affidavit as per the Assessing Officer bear no relevance to his findings. I, therefore, do not agree with the submission as made by the Authorised Representative before me regarding his objection that the Assessing Officer did not consider the contents of the affidavits nor he cross-examined the farmers who filed the same. I accept the findings of Hon'....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....has been laid down that the farmer member on his own would carry out harvesting the transporting the sugarcane from the fields to the mill gate. Whereas, in practice, it was carried out by the appellant through mukadams and transporters and, thus, there is found a clear-cut contract between the bye-laws and its binding nature of the member farmers. Hence, the contention of the appellant is not accepted in this regard. 12.3 During the appellate proceedings, the Authorised Representative of the appellant again quoted the findings of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. R.M. Chidambaram Pillai 106 ITR 292. After the perusal of the said judgment, it is found that the Hon'ble Court laid down the ratio that salary paid to a partner by a firm which gross and sells tea, is exempt from tax under rule 24 of the Indian Income-tax Rules, 1922, to the extent of 60 per cent, thereof representing agricultural income and is liable to tax only to the extent of 40 per cent. By citing this judgment of Court, perhaps, the Authorised Representative of the appellant wants to say that the farmers were earning agricultural income by way of selling of sugarcane and therefore that was not subject to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rred to some of the documents (but not all) in paper-book (Vol.I & II), such as, Page No. 72 which is copy of resolution No. 8 dated 12-11-2001, page No. 73 which is the copy of resolution No. 10 dated 7-10-2002. (English version of these two documents is placed at page No. 72A, and 74A, 74B respectively). Page No. 87(1), 287(4) which are copies of bye laws for the season 2003-04, some vouchers for accounting for the amount of ₹ 165 per M.T. towards the sale price of the farmer and copy of account (from the assessee's books of account) of the farmers showing total purchase price payable by the assessee and deductions, including the deduction of ₹ 165 M.T. towards payment to the Samiti, page Nos. 90 to 166 which are copies of vouchers for making payment to the Samiti in the form of alleged advance towards payment of purchase price to farmers and copies of notification by the Government fixing the purchase price of sugar cane for different sugar factories including assessee, during the different reasons submitted that farmers were under obligation to deliver the sugarcane at the factory gate of the assessee, i.e. at the gate of the factory and since it was time consuming ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r the assessee, the salary to the supervisors and so-called field boys was being paid by the "Samiti"' and not by the assessee. To bring home his point, the ld. counsel for the assessee, strongly relied upon on the terms of Resolution No. 8 dated 12-11-2001, Resolution No. 10 dated 7-12-2002, Affidavits of the farmers, assessee's books of account wherein the advance payment of ₹ 165 per M.T. had been accounted for against purchase price payable by the assessee to various farmers (farmer-wise), the receipts given by the farmers in token of having received part purchase price at the rate of 165 per M.T. etc. etc. The ld.counsel for the assessee, further submitted that if the "Samiti" was considered to be a benami Organization of the assessee, onus was on the Revenue to establish that "Samiti" was assessee's benami Organization which has not been the case here. With respect to affidavits of various farmers filed by the assessee during the course of proceedings before the Assessing Officer, the ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that the Assessing Officer was not justified in rejecting the affidavits without cross-examining a single farmer. The l....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rea of operation from factory in his own land. For the evidence of his own land, copy of deed, copy of abstract of 7-12, 8-A and Form No. 6 should be attached at the time of filling-up the plantation form. 3.The sanction of month and area may be permitted as requested by the member. 4.Registered new plant cane/ratoon crop to be given to organization compulsorily. Defaulter may be liable for penalty of ₹ 3000 per acre. 5.Member himself has to send his own harvested sugar cane to the organization. 6.Member has to fill-up the form of such village in which his name is enlisted in the voting list of the village. Member has to register in the share holding village only, though the actual cane plantation may fall in the dual territory villages in the area of operation and the villages falling outside the area of operation. Registration of plantation made in the area of operation except dual territory village, may be made in the concerned villages. 7.The plantation of sugarcane of following varieties may be made as accepted by the organization: (a) Varieties permitted for plantation from October till season end: COC 671, CO 86032, COAN 95132, O 92020, CO 86002, COSI 95071 Perm....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is 30 M.T. per acre or comes more production than it, more ratoon can be kept. 17.No preference in cane harvesting will be given for the cane crop damage due to animals, railway or riots. 18.Block No. of the field in which cane plantation is done is required to be informed. 19.If any question/dispute arises in future for the planted land, organization shall not be liable. Total responsibility for fulfilling sugar cane shall be of the member. 20.Organization reserves the right for change in above rules and regulations. I have gone through the cane plantation rules and regulation for the season 2003-04 and thereafter I have filled this form with full understanding and with a condition to abide all the rules and regulations. Accordingly my cane plantation demand is as follows: Name of the member :____________Name of Village : ___________ Member's Code No. :____________Village Code No. :_____________ Share Areas of Block AT & Canal/ Name Month Cane No. Demand Acre- No. Post Water of under variety Guntha Village Well Canal demand Signature of Member" (ii)Resolution No. 8 dated 12-11-2001 reads as under:- "Shree Chalthan Vibhg Khand Udyog Shaka....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Development Fund from members registered sugar cane price. Further resolved to deduct ₹ 30 per M.T. plus ₹ 10 per M.T. per week for the earlier period to scheduled crushing for the burnt sugar cane. It is further resolved unanimously to pay cane price for registered and unregistered cane supplied by working sugar and members/normal members as under: 1.In the case of working sugar factory the price will be paid at the lower of ex-field price of that sugar factory and to borne harvesting transportation expenses. In addition to this, as per the rules and regulation the amount is to be deducted from cane price for Kalyan, Hospital, Road Development fund and Burnt sugar cane. 2.It has been decided the ex-factory cane price of ₹ 1049 per M.T. for the sugar cane crushed supplied by members/nominal members (within the area of plantation and outside the area of plantation), after deducting administrative charges, additional harvesting-transportation exps., Kalyan, Hospital, Road Development Fund and Burnt sugar cane as per rules and regulations. 3.As per the rules and regulation, the administration charges, Kalyan, Hospital, Road Development Fund and Burnt sugar cane,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to the sugar factory by carts, trucks or tractors and the theft or any loss by any reason of the cane during transportation is absolutely my own responsibility. Nothing is being paid against theft or loss by any reason of cane by Mandli. I am the member of this Mandli and sending the cultivated cane in this sugar plant from past so many years. In short, the sugar factory purchases the cane crop cultivated in my land as a gate cane at the factory gate/weigh bridge and pays us the Ex-gate cane price after completion of cane crushing season. Zone Samiti (Committee) formed amongst our farmers handling the job of cane harvesting and transportation up to sugar factory gate and the sugar factory is not having any relationship with this activity at all. The total responsibility of cane plantation, cultivation and harvesting and transportation up to factory gate as per harvesting programme is solely my work and my responsibility. Sugar factory is only doing the job of manufacture/conversion of white crystal sugar from sugarcane. The staff engaged for cane harvesting and transportation is owned by me and I am the responsible person of their recruitment and payment of their cost. I am boun....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....count as per my will and consent are being transferred to this Sabhasad Zone Samiti with my willing consent as given to sugar factory. I am totally empowered to manage my ex-factory cane price payment as per my needs and necessity as I am the sole owner of my cane crop sent to sugar factory. I always acknowledge and sign the voucher for payment of cane price as and when advance money or money required for payment of bill and as such, have authorized the trustworthy person of our samiti to withdraw the amount out of my gate delivery cane price. The necessary information in respect of cane harvesting programme has sent to me by sugar factory through cane control quality boys time to time specifying the cane harvesting period and date. After receipt of the necessary instructions for cane harvesting through cane quality and control boys of the sugar factory. I am harvesting and transporting my own cane through the labour employed and by suitable transportation media at factory gate/weigh bridge. After receipt of cane harvesting schedule, I used to go to my own field and make all necessary arrangements for timely harvesting, by removing the trash, roots and such type of waste material....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... opinion that in proceedings before the ITAT, it is Rule No. 10 of ITAT Rules. 1963 which provides for furnishing of an Affidavit and according to this Rule, the Affidavit is to be filed where a fact much cannot be borne out or is contrary to, the record is alleged, it shall be stated clearly and consciously and supported by a duly sworn Affidavit. The Rule in question reads as under:- "10. Filing of affidavits.-Where a fact which cannot be borne out by, or is contrary to, the record is alleged, it shall be stated clearly and concisely and supported by a duly sworn affidavit." 10.2 The other provisions for enabling the Subjects to file an Affidavit are contained in Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Here, we would, before considering the provisions of Indian Evidence Act, 1872, are of the opinion that though, normally, the Income-tax proceedings are not governed by strict rules of the Indian Evidence Act, and are also aware that the Income-tax proceedings except for the purpose specified under section 136 of the Income-tax Act, are not judicial proceedings, but at the same time, since it is settled law that the Income-tax proceedings are quasi-judicial in nature and therefore, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ies made from or compared with the original; (4)Counterparts of the documents as against the parties who did not execute them; (5)Oral accounts of the contents of a document given by some person who has himself seen total income. Section 64 : Proof of documents by primary evidence - Documents must be proved by primary evidence except in the cases hereinafter mentioned. Section 65 : Cases in which secondary evidence relating to documents may be given - Secondary evidence may be given of the existence, condition or contents of documents of the following cases:- (a)When the original is shown or appears to be in the possession or power - of the person against whom the document is sought to be proved, or Of any person out of reach of, or not subject to, the process of the Court, or Of any person legally bound to produce it, And when, after the notice mentioned in section 66, such person does not produce it; (b)When the existence, condition or contents of the original have been proved to be admitted in writing by the person against whom it is proved or by his representative in interest; (c)When the original has been destroyed or lost, or when the party offering evidence of its c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ccording to these provisions, to establish the proof of document by considering the same as primary evidence, the documents must be proved except in the case mentioned in other provisions of the Act. 10.6 So far as section 65 is concerned, it prescribes the circumstances under which the existence of a document, can be established by way of secondary evidence when it cannot be proved by way of primary evidence. 11. So far as the present case is concerned, we are of the opinion that though it is not a case of establishment of existence of a document, yet the procedure to establish a fact, which is not borne out from the records, will be similar. In the present case, what the assessee had tried to establish, by way of the Affidavits of various farmers, is that the "Samiti" was not assessee's Organization/Branch because the liability to deliver the sugarcane at the gate of assessee's factory was that of farmers. 12. After having gone through the statements made in the Affidavits, we are of the opinion that these are nothing, but repetition of assessee's submissions, for which the assessee has already referred to various documents. In other words, by furnishing the Affidavi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t - (i)Where the Unit/Organization/Outfit/ a work place is considered to be a part of the assessee's own organization, it falls, only within the ambit of Term "Branch Office/Branch Unit or branch organization" and nothing else, meaning thereby that it does not fall/come within the definition of benami organization as has been confessed by the assessee. (ii)Without prejudice to the above, even if it is assumed for the sake of arguments, that "Samiti" fall within the ambit of 'Benami Organization", then also we are of the opinion that to prove the benami organization, the Revenue was to establish two ingredients; namely, (a)that, the funds available with the "Samiti" belonged to the assessee and flowed from the assessee. (b)The fruits of the activities carried on by the "Samiti"/income earned by the Samiti was enjoyed by the assessee. 18. So far as the assessee's case is concerned, it is an admitted fact that the total funds advanced to the Samiti belonged to the assessee and have flown from assessee to the Samiti for carrying out the jobs for which the assessee was under obligation to perform - this will be established in subsequent ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... i.e. the Assessee, but do not have his fields by the side of Road. Could the assesses refuse to receive the sugarcane grown by such farmer - members in fields away from Road and if not, then how those farmers could be charged deduction at the rate of ₹ 165 per M.T. The rule also does not specify as to what will happen to the case of farmers who had their transport - specially in view of the admitted fact by the Assessee that it was deducting an amount equal to ₹ 165 per M.T. from the sale price payable to in the case of each farmer, such bye-laws, in our opinion, is a well knit planning of the assessee to befool the farmers as well as the Revenue and, therefore, the same cannot be accepted to be lawful. (iii)Deduction of an amount of ₹ 165 per M.T., allegedly out of purchase price payable by the assessee against purchase of sugarcane from various farmers is or cannot be said to be in the interest of all the farmers, because the farmers whose fields were nearer/in the vicinity of the factory they were in loss as compared to farmers whose fields were situated far away. Same freight cannot be charged for different distances and nobody will pay at least the farmers ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h remained as surplus with the "Samiti" at the end of each season/year, by claiming the same to be expenditure on account of purchase price. In fact, the payment to "Samiti" was not at all the payment on account of part payment of purchase price payable to farmer, rather was in the nature of impressed payments to Branch Office and should not have been allowed as deduction. We are conscious of the fact that this issue is not before us, but the observation has to be made to bring home the point that payment to "Samiti" was not on account of purchase price. 23. So far as the assessee's plea that salary to supervisors and more than 200 field boys was being paid by the "Samiti" and not by the assessee is concerned, we are of the opinion that it is normal practice for the assessee having Branch office or Outfit that money is transferred to the Branch office for incurring expenditure and surplus or deficit is accounted for in assessee's books of account. We are, therefore, of the opinion that payment of salary by the "Samiti" to Supervisors and Field boys was for and on behalf of assessee itself. 24. During the course of hearing, the ld.....