IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2018-19 CDC Gola Comitte Phardan v. The Income Tax Officer Ayyubi Chamber Range 3(4)

Raniganj Lakhimpur Kheri-1 Lakhimpur Kheri (U.P)

TAN/PAN:AAALC0542R (Appellant) (Respondent)

Appellant by: Shri Shubham Rastogi, C.A.

Respondent by: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R.

O R D E R

This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 06.12.2023, passed by the National Faceless appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC) for Assessment Year 2018-19.

2.0 The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is Sugar Cane Development Council constituted by Cane Commissioner under section 5 of U.P. Sugar Cane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Act, 1953 and carries out various functions as contained in section 6 of the said Act. The assessee filed its return of income for the year under consideration on 28.10.2018, declaring income at Nil. The case of the assessee was selected for complete scrutiny under CASS for the reason that ‘The assessee has disclosed substantial commission receipt whereas the total income in the ITR is comparably low’. The Assessing Officer (AO)

issued statutory notices to the assessee. The assessee furnished replies and produced the Income and Expenditure Account for the captioned assessment year. From the Income and Expenditure Account furnished by the assessee, the AO noticed that the assessee had shown total income of Rs.76,69,439/- for the year under consideration, however, in column No.39 under the head ‘Other Expenses’ of the ITR, the assessee had shown expenses of Rs.79,18,742/-. It was further noticed by the AO that the assessee had only spent Rs.46,26,218/- out of the total receipts and had declared a total saving of Rs.32,92,524/-. The AO, thereafter, issued a show cause notice dated 18.02.2021, requiring the assessee to show cause as to why the amount of Rs.32,92,524/- being the saving declared by the assessee, be not added to the income of the assessee. The assessee vide reply dated 24.02.2021 submitted that the savings was actually the unspent amount which would be carried forward to the next year for spending on the development works. Not being satisfied with the submissions made on behalf of the assessee, the AO added Rs.32,92,524/- to the income of the assessee. The AO also treated the assessee as an AOP instead of a Co-operative Society for the reason that the assessee had not claimed any deduction under section 80P of the Act. The AO completed the assessment under section 143(3) of the Act read with sections 143(3A) and

143(3B) of the Act, assessing the total income of the assessee at Rs.32,92,524/- as against Nil income declared by the assessee.

2.1 Aggrieved, the Assessee preferred an appeal before the NFAC. The submission of the assessee before the NFAC was that the assessee was a Corporate Body and was part of U.P. State Cane Department. It was further submitted before the NFAC that the AO had ignored the facts of the case and also the past history. It was also submitted before the NFAC that the assessee was a fund management body functioning on behalf of the State Government of U.P. and had no independent rights on the funds and that the unutilized funds at the end of the year were either surrendered to the Government or carried forward to the next year. The assessee had also placed reliance on the assessment order of another assessee, i.e., Cane Development Council and the order of the Ld. CIT(A) in the assessee’s own case for assessment year 2016-17 and also several other case laws. However, the NFAC held that the facts of the instant case were distinguishable from the facts of the case laws relied upon by the assessee including the Ld. CIT(A)’s order in the assessee’s own case for assessment year 2016-17 and, accordingly, it dismissed the appeal of the assessee and confirmed the order of the AO.

2.2 Now, the assessee has approached this Tribunal challenging the order of the