Court No. - 35 Case :- INCOME TAX APPEAL No. - 180 of 2012 Appellant :- Commissioner Of Income Tax And Another Respondent :- M/S Mansurpur Sugar Mills Ltd. Counsel for Appellant :- C.S.C.,Manu Ghildiyal Counsel for Respondent :- Suyash Agrawal Hon'ble Bharati Sapru,J. Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J. Heard Sri Gaurav Mahajan along with Sri Manu Ghildiyal, learned counsel for appellants and Sri Suyash Agrawal, learned counsel for respondent-assessee. Present appeal under Section 260-A of Income Tax Act has been filed assailing judgment and order of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench "G" New Delhi (hereinafter called as 'ITAT') dated 17.03.2006. appeal relates to assessment year 1995-96. aforesaid appeal was admitted on 05.02.2010 on following question of law:- "(1) "Whether on facts and in circumstances of case, Tribunal is justified in directing A.O. to examine relevant clauses of scheme and facts relating to alleged subsidies and thereafter allow claim of assessee in view of order of Tribunal dated 30.11.1999 in case of Simbholi Sugar Mills Ltd., ITA No. 1439/Del/1990 for A/Y 1986-87 in as much as facts of case relied upon by Tribunal are not similar and identical to facts of present case?" (2) "Whether on facts and in circumstances of case, Tribunal is justified in confirming order of CIT(A) in deleting disallowance of Rs.1,03,353/- made by assessing officer on account of disallowance of lease rental paid in respect of plant and machinery taken on hire ignoring fact that payment are merely financial arrangements but have been given color of sale and lease back transactions?" (3) "Whether on facts and in circumstances of case, Tribunal is justified in confirming order of CIT(A) in deleting disallowance of Rs.1,03,353/- made by assessing officer on account of disallowance of lease rental paid to various companies including Dhampur Sugar Mills Ltd. which have substantial interest in assessee's companies and there was no physical transfer of machinery?" (4) "Whether on facts and in circumstances of case, Tribunal is right in holding that contribution by assessee to molasses reserve fund amounting to Rs.3,42,040/- is allowable as same being statutory liability of assessee?" (5) "Whether on facts and circumstances of case, Tribunal was justified in law in deleting addition of Rs.59,65,900/- made on account of under billing in respect of free sale of sugar without appreciating that Indian Evidence Act clearly speaks that when documentary evidence is available no oral evidence can be adduced?" At very outset, counsel for respondent-assessee placed before Court copy of judgment passed in Income Tax Appeal No. 390 of 2006 (Commissioner of Income Tax, Muzz. Nagar and another v. M/S Mansurpur Sugar Mills Ltd.) inter-se between parties for assessment year 1994-95, in which substantial question of law nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 were identical to Income Tax Appeal No. 390 of 2006 being substantial question of law nos. 1, 4, 5 and 8 and being decided on 17.10.2016. Sri Gaurav Mahajan, learned counsel appearing for Department does not dispute said fact. As far as question of law no. 5 is concerned, as to deletion of addition of Rs.59,65,900/- made on account of under billing in respect of free sale of sugar, we find that assessing authority on basis of report of newspaper on various dates found price of sugar more than rates shown by respondent-assessee and hence, held that assessee had under recorded sales by Rs.20/- per bag and made addition of Rs.59,65,900/- on account of under recording of sales. CIT(A) on appeal filed by assessee recorded finding that newspaper quotation only gives general market trend and it cannot be basis for calculating suppress sale and held that merely on newspaper quotation, assessing officer was not justified in making addition of said amount and thus deleted addition. order of CIT(A) was confirmed by Tribunal, which is under challenge. Having heard counsel for parties and having examined records of case, we find that substantial question of law nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 have already been decided in Income Tax Appeal No. 390 of 2006 on 17.10.2016 as substantial question of law nos. 1, 4, 5 and 8 between parties. As regard substantial question of law no. 5, we find that AO had made addition only on basis of newspaper quotation which was deleted by CIT(A) and finding being confirmed by Tribunal. same being concurrent finding finding of fact, we decline to interfere in finding recorded by authorities below and appeal is hereby dismissed. question of law, therefore, is answered in favour of assessee and against Revenue. Order Date :- 15.10.2019 V.S.Singh Commissioner of Income-tax and Another v. Mansurpur Sugar Mills Ltd