- (1.) We have heard Shri Dhananjay Awasthi, learned counsel for the revenue. Shri R.S. Agrawal appears for the assessee.
(2.) On 15.1.2013 and thereafter on 15.7.2013 the Court passed following orders:- "Order dated 15.1.2013 As many as 6 substantial questions of law have been framed by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Moradabad in the present appeal. However, we find that the question Nos. 1, 4 and 5, which are to the following effect "(1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified inlaw in upholding the order of CIT (A) in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 27,00,000/- made on account of Production Incentive Bonus (4) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal is justified in holding that Tubewell is a Plant and (5) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, theTribunal is justified in law in upholding the order of CIT (A) in allowing the claim of Molasses Reserve Fund - have been decided in favour of the assessee by the decision of this Court in Income Tax Appeal No. 158 of 1999 - Commissioner of Income Tax, Bareilly Versus M/s. Rudra Bilas Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd., Bilaspur decided on 05.09.2011, which covers question Nos. 1 and 4. So far as the claim of Molasses Reserve Fund is concerned, the same has been decided in favour of the assessee by a decision of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Versus New Horizon Sugar Mills (P) Ltd. reported in 269 ITR 397. Therefore, the appeal is admitted on the remaining three substantial question Nos. 2, 3 and 6 framed in the memo of appeal." "Order dated 15.7.2013 It is stated by Shri Dhananjay Awasthi, appearing for the revenue that the certified copy of the order of the Tribunal was filed in the leading case. The filing of the certified copy is dispensed with. The appeal will be given regular number. The Tribunal decided the second appeal arising out of the years 1991-92, 1993-04, 1994-95 and 1996-97 by a common order dated 11.8.2006. Today the appeals filed by Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act in respect of assessment year 1993-94 being Income Tax Appeal Defective No.100 of 2007 and for 1994-95 being Income Tax Appeal Defective No.108 of 2007 have been listed. On 15.1.2013, while considering the matter for admission of the appeals the Court noticed that out of six substantial questions three have been decided by a decision of this Court in Income Tax Appeal No.158 of 1999 (Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Rudra Bilas Sehkari Chini Mills Ltd) dated 5.9.2011. So far as the claim of mollases reserved is concerned (question no.5), the same has been decided in favour of assessee by the Supreme Court in CIT vs. New Horizon Sugar Mills (P) Ltd (269 ITR 397). The appeal was admitted on questions no. 2, 3 and 6. We are informed that in respect of same assessee, in Income Tax Appeal Defective No.113 of 2007 the question as to whether the CIT (A) was justified in upholding the deletion of disallowance out of guest house expenses has also been decided on 25.2.2010. The Court held that the expense incurred for the purposes of guest house is not the business expenses and is not liable to deduction. This leaves only questions no. 2 and 3 to be decided by the Court. We find that the Tribunal had decided the appeals for four assessment years out of which only two appeals have been placed before us. Learned counsel appearing for the department will find out whether any appeals have been filed in respect of assessment years 1992-93, 1996-97 by the department and that this Court has decided the same. Shri R.S. Agarwal, appearing for the assessee will also find out whether the appeals filed by the department were decided either for or against the assessee. List on 29.7.2013. The matter will not be adjourned on that day."
(3.) The question nos.2 and 3 on which this appeal is to be decided are quoted as below:- "(2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in law in upholding order of CIT (A) in deleting the addition of Rs.25,91,755/- made on account of under valuation of closing stock (3) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in law in confirming the order of CIT (A) in deleting the addition of under valuation of closing stock while the Tribunal restored this issue for fresh examination in A/Y-1992-93, 1995-96 & 1998-99 -;