CST Vs. BRIHAN MAHARASHTRA SUGAR SYNDICATE LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN these references, the following three questions are referred to us under S. 39 of the Maharashtra Agrl. IT Act, 1962 :

(2.) THESE references relate to asst. yrs. 1964 65, 1965 66 and 1966 67, respectively. The same questions are raised for our decision in these references. Identical questions raised between the same parties for the asst. yrs. 1962 63 and 1963 64 were answered by us in Sales Tax Reference Nos. 9 of 1980 and 10 of 1980 decided by us today. (CST vs. Brihan Maharashtra Sugar Syndicate Ltd. (1987) 165 ITR 217 (Bom). In view of our judgment in those references, the questions which are referred to us are answered as follows : Question No. 1 in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. Question No. 2 in the affirmative save and except that expenses in this connection which were held as personal expenses by the ITO cannot be allowed by the Agrl. ITO. Question No. 3 is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee.

(3.) IT seems that during the period covered by the three assessment years in question, the assessees had contested the land ceiling proceedings in respect of the land then held by it for sugarcane cultivation. The expenses so incurred which were claimed as a deduction were Rs. 10,660 for asst. year 1964 65, Rs. 7,976 for asst. year 1965 66 and Rs. 10,968 for asst. year 1966 67. These expenses were held as revenue expenses by the Tribunal and were allowed as a deduction. The application of the Department for referring the question of these deductions to the High Court was negatived by the Tribunal. Thereupon the Department filed three applications in this Court being Agrl. IT Application Nos. 110 of 1975, 111 of 1975 and 112 of 1975, asking for a direction that the Tribunal should be directed to refer the said question to us. These applications have been granted and the rule has been made absolute by orders passed by this Court in January, 1976. So far, however, the Tribunal has not referred the said question along with the statement of the case to us. Learned counsel appearing for both sides agree that an additional statement of the case is not required for the purpose of answering the said question since the statement of the case and the order of reference in the present three references contain all requisite facts for the purpose of answering the said question. They have applied that the question may be answered by us as if it had been already referred to us by the Tribunal in order to save time. We see no objection to it since the Tribunal is already directed to refer the question to us and an additional statement of case is not necessary. In the case of Amolak Ram Khosla vs. CIT (1981) 131 ITR 589 (SC),a somewhat similar course was followed by the Supreme Court. Accordingly, the following additional question as per the order in the said three applications under the Agrl. IT Act is framed :