TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (8) TMI 1567
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ever, going through the records, we find that this issue is already adjudicated in so many other cases following the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT Vs. Tasgaon Taluka S.S.K. Ltd. (2019) 103 taxmann.com 57 (SC). 3. The only issue for adjudication is with regard to the sale of sugar at concessional rate. Similar issue has come up for consideration before co-ordinate Bench of Pune Tribunal in the case of Shree Adinath SSK Ltd. Vs. ACIT in ITA No. 485/PUN/2019 for A.Y. 2013-14, order dated 11-05-2022, wherein it has been observed and held as under: "Ground Nos.15 to 18 pertains to "Sale of Sugar at Concessional rate to members" 6. On this issue, the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of ACIT Vs. Shri Shankar SSK L....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng the said judgment by the Apex Court. However, while giving effect to the said directions, the CIT(A) failed to comply with the directions strictly. For example, the direction relating to income nature of the said concession in sale price and includibility of the concessional sugar price in the total income of the assessee stands unattended by the CIT(A) while passing the order. The adjudication on this crucial direction is essential. In the absence of the decision of the lower authorities on these crucial issues, it is not possible for the Tribunal to adjudicate the issues under consideration raised by the appellants/department. In the above background, both, the counsels for the assessees and the Revenue fairly submitted that there is r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ome a practice or custom in cooperative sugar industry? c) Whether any resolution has been passed by State Govt. supporting the practice? d) CIT(A) will also consider on what basis the quantity of sugar is sold on month to month basis, apart from Diwali. 4. After above judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court was pronounced, in various appeals decided by different CIT(A)s, they have taken differing approaches, wherein: a) CIT(A)s have not decided the issue that was directed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as to "whether difference between market price and concessional price of sugar sold should or should not be added to total income of the assessee society". (emphasis ours) This issue revolves round whether the income sought to be assess....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r, its price and monthly quantum. d) Most CIT(A)s, having noted the aforesaid order dt. 1/3/2006, held that sugar sold at prices lower than levy sugar as provided of in the said order, would be taxable in assessee's hands at the difference between levy price and concessional price charged for infringement of the order. e) Some CIT(A)s held that concession sugar sold in excess of quantum permitted by order dt. 1/3/2006, would be taxable in the hands of the assessee society for infringement of the order. f) Some CIT(A)s held that concession sugar sold to cane growers who were not members was not permitted by order dt. 1/3/2006 and as such was its infringement and therefore, the concession given was taxable in the hands of the assesse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....difference between levy price of sugar plus excise duty (as directed in order dt. 1/3/2006) and the price charged to members / cane suppliers which is to be taxed in the hands of assessee society, they may record their findings and reasons for their decision considering assessee societies contentions that they have not received this difference and hence it is not their income. 8. In the event of aforesaid difference (in 6 or in 7 above) is taxed as income in the hands of the assessee society, the quantity of sugar sold to members / cane growers which is being taxed be specified by the revenue authorities with their findings and reasons for the same. In arriving at the above findings and reasons, as directed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court i....