Commissioner of Income Tax vs Haryana Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd.

Jawahar Lal Gupta, J.—The assessee is a co-operative society engaged in the manufacture and sale of sugar. It filed its return for the assessment year 1990-91 and showed a loss of Rs. 11,34,429. The assessment was completed u/s 143(3) of the income tax Act, 1961 (''the Act'') on 12-3-1993. Aggrieved by the additions made by the Assessing Officer, the respondent filed an appeal. It was accepted by the Commissioner (Appeals), Rohtak, vide order dated 13-12-1993. The revenue then filed an appeal before the Tribunal vide order dated 26-6-2000, the appeal was dismissed. Aggrieved by the order, the revenue has filed the present appeal u/s 260A of the Act. It contends that the following question of law arises for consideration by this Court : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT was right in law in deleting the addition of Rs. 11,27,168 out of production incentive paid to the employees, Rs. 18,10,670 out of cane development expenses and Rs. 8,04,852 and Rs. 12,000 out of exemption claimed u/s 80P(2) and regarding interest invested in another cooperative society?

A perusal of the above shows that the first part of the dispute relates to the addition of Rs. 11,27,168 on account of production incentive. Mr. R.P. Sawhney fairly concedes that the matter is concluded against the revenue by the decision in CIT v. Haryana Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd. [IT Reference No. 45 of 1999, dated 15-11-2000]. The next is the deduction of Rs. 18,10,670 on account of the expense incurred by the assessee on promotion of growth of sugarcane. This matter is concluded against the revenue by the decision of this Bench in CIT v. Panipat Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd. [2002] 123 Tax 67 (Punj. & Har.). Then we have the amount of Rs. 8,16,852 which has been allowed by the Tribunal as permissible deduction u/s 80P(2)(d). The matter is concluded against the revenue by the decision of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Haryana Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd., .

In view of the above, all the three matters are covered by the decisions of this Court against the revenue. Therefore, no substantial question of law arises for consideration by this Court. Resultantly, the appeal is dismissed in limine.