ORDER SHEET ITA 147 OF 2000 IN HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Special Jurisdiction (Income Tax) ORIGINAL SIDE C.I.T.WB-1 Versus M/S.GOVIND SURAN MILLS BEFORE: Hon'ble JUSTICE GIRISH CHANDRA GUPTA Hon'ble JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA Date : 29th April, 2015. For Respondent/assessee : Mr.S.Bagaria,Advocate Court : appeal was presented on 6th April, 2000 with prayer for condonation of delay in filing appeal. Prayer for condonation of delay was allowed and Rule was issued. Mr.Bagaria, learned advocate is appearing for assessee but no one has appeared for appellant. matter was continuously in list. On 17th March, 2015, Md.Nizamuddin appeared for appellant. He prayed for leave to serve which was granted. matter was adjourned on his prayer. After adjourned date, matter is continuously in list but no one appeared to take care of appeal. Mr.Bagaria, learned advocate appearing for assessee submitted that appeal is altogether unmeritorious. questions suggested by revenue are as follows : I. Whether on facts and circumstances of case Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in deleting addition of overhead expenses including depreciation from valuation of closing stock as taken by Assessing Officer ? 2 II. Whether on facts and in circumstances of case Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in deleting addition on account of Molasses Storage Fund when there was no contribution actually paid in said fund ? He contended that question no.II is covered by judgement of this Court in case of CIT v. New India Sugar Mills Ltd. reported in (1994) 206 ITR 212 wherein it was held that there was no finding by Tribunal that assessee had gained any advantage of enduring nature or acquired any capital asset as result of contribution made under compulsion of law. contribution made by assessee and other sugar mill owners might be utilised for creating storage facilities. But result of expenditure would not augment or improve capital structure of assessee-company. contribution to Molasses Storage Reserve Fund created under U.P.Sheera Niyantran (Sansodhan) Adesh, 1974, was revenue expenditure. With regard to question no.I, he submitted that method adopted by assessee for valuation of its closing stock was without taking into account overhead costs. In other words, only direct costs were taken into account in valuing closing stock. But that procedure adopted by assessee was rejected by assessing officer and CIT (Appeal) did not appear to interfere. assessee did not go up in appeal. Therefore, assessee has accepted that part of order. 3 In so far as question pertaining to depreciation is concerned, he contended that question itself is vague because depreciation is applicable to capital asset whereas closing stock is revenue asset. Therefore, question itself, according to him, is vague and meaning sought to be conveyed cannot be ascertained with any amount of reasonable certainty. Be that as it may, his submissions are recorded. Since appellant did not press appeal, appeal is dismissed. (GIRISH CHANDRA GUPTA, J.) (ARINDAM SINHA, J.) ssaha AR(CR) C.I.T. WB-1 v. M/s.Govind Suran Mill