Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. That the appellant craves leave to add, modify and / or delete any ground(s) of appeal.

4. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the order of the CIT(A), Noida may be set aside and that of the AO restored.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the Assessee is a Cooperative Society running sugar mill at District Baghpat, UP. In this case the return of income was filed on 10.9.2008 declaring current year's loss of Rs. 17,47,57,606/-. The case was picked up for scrutiny and assessment was completed on the total loss of Rs. 10,70,95,865/- vide assessment order u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act dated 28.12.2013. .

The assessee has claimed that these loans have been received by the asssessee from the U.P. Government through its institutional machinery for clearing all outstanding cane dues of farmers and for other specified purposes only. In this regard, copy of sanction letter for above loan was placed before the Ld. CIT(A) from which it was seen that the loan under consideration has been sanctioned by the U.P. State Government also specifying that Hon'ble Governor of U.P. has sanctioned these, loans for specified purposes for which the funds have been withdrawn from Consolidated Funds of U.P. Government and that the utiiization certificate is to be submitted by the respective mills to the designated authorities of U.P. Government and that its re-payment is also to be made by the mills to the U.P. Government only. In this regard, the assessee has vehemently argued before the Ld. CIT(A) that the definition of Public Financial Institutions/State Financial Corporation/State Industrial investment Corporation as given under the provision of Section 4A(2) of the Companies Act 1956 do not cover U.P. State Government; U.P. Sahakari Chinni Mills Sangh Limited and Sakkar Vikash Nikdhi from where the assessee has taken Loan and therefore, no disallowance on this account should be made and that the addition made by the A.O. deserves to be deleted. The assessee has further submitted that the provisions of 43B(d) of the Income Tax Act gives exhaustive definition of all Public Financial Institutions/State Financial Corporation/State Industrial Investment Corporation which has been prescribed u/s. 4A(2) of the Companies Act and on careful perusal of the same shows that the names of U.P. State Government, U,P. Sahakari Chini Mill Sangh Limited and Sakkar Vikash Nidhi are nowhere mentioned in the list of such investment institutions. Further, the assessee also contended that in the tax audit report u/s.44AB even the auditor has not mentioned in clause 21 that the interest accrued and due but not paid on above loans are covered by section 43B(d) of the Income Tax Act. We find that Ld. CIT(A) has rightly held that the UP State Government itself and also its institutions namely UP Sahakari Chini Mill Sangh Limited and Sakkar Vikash Nikdhi are not covered by the definition of Public Financial Institutions / State Finance Institutions/ State Industrial Finance Institutions as defined u/s. 4A(2) of the Companies Act, 1956 and therefore provisions of section 43B(d) of the I.T. Act are not attracted in this case. Accordingly, disallowance made on this account was rightly deleted by the Ld. CIT(A). We also find force in the assessee's counsel contention that the issue in dispute is squarely covered by the decision of the ITAT, 'H' Bench, Delhi in assessee's own case for the assessment year 2007-08 in ITA No. 6157/Del/2012 in the case of ACIT vs. The Baghpat Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd. wherein it was held that "as the interest in question is payable to Govt. of India and the State of UP Government, Section 43B(d) does not apply." In view of the above, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A), hence, we uphold the same and dismiss the issue in dispute raised by the Revenue.