ORDER The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, has referred the following question of law under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for opinion to this court :
'Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that the amount of Rs 20,55,827 was not taxable in the hands of the assessee as income ?"
2. The reference relates to the assessment years 1973-74 to 1978-79. Briefly stated facts giving rise to the present reference are as follows:
2. The reference relates to the assessment years 1973-74 to 1978-79. Briefly stated facts giving rise to the present reference are as follows:
The respondent- assessee derives income from manufacture and sale of sugar. During the assessment years in question it realized excess levy price from the customers under the interim orders passed by this court. The assessee was required to give security in the form of fixed deposits. The Income Tax Officer treated this excess price as trading receipts. In the appeal filed by the respondent-assessee, the Commissioner (Appeals) deleted the addition. The Tribunal has upheld the deletion of the amount from the trading receipts by following its earlier order in the case of Dhampur Sugar Mills Ltd. (IT Appeal Nos. 1099 (Delhi) of 1973-74 and 3269 to 3277 (Delhi) of 1984-85, dated 26-7-1996).
3. We have heard Sri Shambhoo Chopra, learned counsel for the revenue. Nobody has appeared on behalf of the respondent-assessee.
3. We have heard Sri Shambhoo Chopra, learned counsel for the revenue. Nobody has appeared on behalf of the respondent-assessee.
4. The matter relating to Dhampur Sugar Mills Ltd. came up for consideration before this court and this court held that the excess levy price did not form part of the trading receipt. The decision is reported in Dhampur Sugar Mills Ltd. v. CIT (1991) 188 ITR 7871 (All). Another matter of Dhampur Sugar Mills Ltd. came up for consideration before this court in IT Reference No. 18 of 1983, dated 25-8-2004 wherein the excess levy price realized by the assessee under the interim orders passed by this court was held to be hedged with certain conditions and not an unconditional realization and it, therefore, did not form part of the income of the assessee. The Tribunal has relied upon the decision in the case of Dhampur Sugar Mills Ltd. (supra) which has been upheld by this court. In this view of the matter we are of the opinion that the excess levy sugar price realized by the assessee did not forrn part of the trading receipt.
4. The matter relating to Dhampur Sugar Mills Ltd. came up for consideration before this court and this court held that the excess levy price did not form part of the trading receipt. The decision is reported in Dhampur Sugar Mills Ltd. v. CIT (1991) 188 ITR 7871 (All). Another matter of Dhampur Sugar Mills Ltd. came up for consideration before this court in IT Reference No. 18 of 1983, dated 25-8-2004 wherein the excess levy price realized by the assessee under the interim orders passed by this court was held to be hedged with certain conditions and not an unconditional realization and it, therefore, did not form part of the income of the assessee. The Tribunal has relied upon the decision in the case of Dhampur Sugar Mills Ltd. (supra) which has been upheld by this court. In this view of the matter we are of the opinion that the excess levy sugar price realized by the assessee did not forrn part of the trading receipt.
5. In view of the foregoing discussions we answer the above mentioned question of law in affirmative i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
5. In view of the foregoing discussions we answer the above mentioned question of law in affirmative i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. However, there shall be no order as to costs.