Remanded

The Commissioner of Income Tax Aurangabad v. Jai Jawan Jai Kisan Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. Latur

Bombay HC21 Dec 2017TA/32/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Division Bench allowed the appeal, citing a Supreme Court judgment, and remitted the matter to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for a fresh decision on merits after giving both parties an opportunity of hearing.

What did the court decide?

The appeal is allowed. The matter is remitted back to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Aurangabad for decision afresh on merits and in accordance with law.

The Commissioner of Income Tax Aurangabad Vs Jai Jawan… — Cooperative Societies | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

F.A. No.1442/2017

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

TAX APPEAL NO.32 OF 2008

¶5

The Commissioner of Income Tax Aayakar Bhavan, Near Holy Cross School, Cantonment, Aurangabad.

¶6

... APPELLANT

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

Jai Jawan Jai Kisan Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd., At/p Nalegaon, Tq. Chakur, District Latur

¶9

... RESPONDENT

¶10

Shri Alok Sharma, Standing Counsel for appellant

¶11

CORAM: PRASANNA B. VARALE AND SUNIL K. KOTWAL, JJ.

¶12

DATED : 21st DECEMBER, 2017.

¶13

ORAL JUDGMENT (PER PRASANNA B. VARALE, J.):

¶14

This appeal is filed by the Revenue, in challenge to the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Department was assailing the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), dated 30.9.2004, pertaining to the assessment year 1999-2000. The Tribunal could not find any favour with the Department. Resultantly, the appeal was dismissed. Present appeal was admitted by this Court by order dated 5.7.2011, on the following questions of law namely :-

¶15

(1) Whether the payments made by a cooperative society

¶16

F.A. No.1442/2017

¶17

¶18

(Co-operative sugar factory) to it's members or nonmembers towards purchase price of sugar cane supplied, in excess of the price as fixed by the Commissioner of Sugar (Registrar of Co-operative Societies representing the State) i.e. State advised price, is liable to be disallowed under Section 40A(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and computed as taxable income of the assessee ?

¶19

(2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the payments made by the Co-operative Society were not excessive and unreasonable within the meaning of Sec. 40A(2) and 37(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 ?

¶20

Though the respondent is duly served, none appears for the respondent. As the appeal is ripe for hearing, the same was posted for final hearing in the cause list. As none appears for the respondent, we are of the view that the respondent is not interested in contesting the appeal. Mr. Alok Sharma, learned Standing Counsel for the appellant submitted that, the substantial questions of law involved in this appeal were identical substantial questions of law involved in Tax Appeal No.55/2009. The Division Bench of this Court, by order dated 3.2.2014, decided the appeal. In the order of the Division Bench, dated 3.2.2014, the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in SLP (C) No.8590 of 2010 [C.I.T., Bombay V/s Krishna Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd.) is referred to. Mr. Sharma submitted

¶21

F.A. No.1442/2017

¶22

¶23

that, there are certain other appeals decided by this Court in view of the Apex Court judgment. Mr. Sharma submitted that, the matters are remitted back to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Aurangabad for decision afresh on merits. Perusal of the order dated 3.2.2014, passed by the Division Bench shows that, in view of the judgment of the Apex Court as well as in view of the fact that the orders impugned in the appeals are cryptic in nature, the Division Bench of this Court thought it fit to remit the matter to the Commissioner of Income Tax, so as to assess the matter afresh on its own merits.

¶24

We see no reason to take any different view than the view adopted by Division Bench of this Court. Resultantly, the Appeal is allowed. The matter is remitted back to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Aurangabad for decision afresh on merits and in accordance with law. We hope and trust that the authority concerned namely Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Aurangabad will decide the matter afresh as expeditiously as possible, needless to state, by giving opportunity of hearing to both the parties.

¶25

( SUNIL K. KOTWAL ) ( PRASANNA B. VARALE ) JUDGE JUDGE

¶26

fmp/

The Commissioner of Income Tax Aurangabad v. Jai Jawan Jai Kisan Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. Latur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Commissioner of Income Tax Aurangabad v. Jai Jawan Jai Kisan Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. Latur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Umarkher Bashir Pathan Vs the Regional Officer, Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation, Latur and Anr.

Chandrakala Radhakishan Brijwasi, Died, Thr. L.Rs. Radhakishan Devkinandan Brijwasi and Ors. Vs the State of Mah, Thr. the Collector, Latur and Anr.

Ankita Bhimrao Chavan Vs Dr. Pravin Harishchandra Shingare and Another

Thecommissioner of Income Tax Vs Vithal Sahakari Sakhar Karkana Ltd.

The Commissioner of Income Tax, Aurangabad Vs Vithal Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd.

The Commissioner of Income Tax, Aurangabad Vs Tuljabhavani Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. Tuljapur Osmanabad.