ORDER Heard Sri A.N. Mahajan, learned counsel for the applicant. None appears for the respondent, though names of as many as seven counsel have been shown for the assessee.
2. The reference is under section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, in which following questions have been referred to us for our opinion :
2. The reference is under section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, in which following questions have been referred to us for our opinion :
"1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the learned Tribunal was right in law in holding that the amount of Rs. 12,66,429 being excess levy sugar price was not taxable in the hands of the assessee company in the year under consideration ?
2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal was right in law in deleting the interest of Rs. 2,89,026 and also in confirming the deletion of interest of Rs. 1,43,282 on the amount of excess levy sugar price claimed by the assessee company ?"
As regards the question No. 1 it is covered by a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of K.C.P. Ltd. v. CIT (2000) 245 ITR 42(SC). The second question is only consequential.
3. Hence, both the questions are decided in the negative, i.e., in favour of the department and against the assessee.
3. Hence, both the questions are decided in the negative, i.e., in favour of the department and against the assessee.