- (1.) THE Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad has referred the following two questions of law under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', for opinion to this Court. '1. Whether in law and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in confirming the decision of the learned CIT(A), holding that the sum of Rs. 38,91,216 realised by the assessee in excess of the sale price fixed by the Government, was not a trading receipt in the assessment year under consideration?
(2.) WHETHER in law and on facts of the case, the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in confirming the learned CIT(A)'s decision allowing the assessees claim of Rs. 6,27,253 on account of interest on excess collection of levy sugar price?' 2. The present reference relates to the assessment year 1981 -82. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present reference are as follows: The respondent -assessee is a public limited company and is engaged in manufacture and sale of sugar. During the previous year relevant to the assessment year in question, the respondent had realised a sum of Rs. 38,91,216 from the Food Corporation of India, being excess levy sugar price for the crushing season 1979 -80 under the interim order passed by the Calcutta High Court. It had also provided a sum of Rs. 6,27,253.53 towards liability of interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum under section 3 of the Levy Sugar Equalisation Fund Act, 1976 in respect of excess realisation of levy sugar price for the assessment years 1973 -74, 1978 -79 and 1979 -80. The Assessing Authority had held that the amount of excess levy sugar price forms part of the trading receipt and is income in the hands of the respondent assessee. He also disallowed the claim of interest. Feeling aggrieved the respondent -assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A), who deleted both the additions, which has been upheld by the Tribunal.
(3.) WE have heard Sri A.N. Mahajan, learned Standing counsel for the revenue. Nobody has appeared on behalf of the respondent -assessee.;