Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Kangra v. ITO, Dharamashala

ITA 1180/CHANDI/2010 | 2007-2008
Pronouncement Date: 21-10-2016 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 118021514 RSA 2010
Assessee PAN AACTA4554B
Bench Chandigarh
Appeal Number ITA 1180/CHANDI/2010
Duration Of Justice 6 year(s) 21 day(s)
Appellant Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Kangra
Respondent ITO, Dharamashala
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 21-10-2016
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted A
Tribunal Order Date 21-10-2016
Date Of Final Hearing 17-10-2016
Next Hearing Date 17-10-2016
Assessment Year 2007-2008
Appeal Filed On 30-09-2010
Judgment Text
1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCHES CHANDIGARH BEFORE JUSTICE (RETD.) DEV DARSHAN SUD PRESIDENT & SHRI J. SUDHAKAR REDDY ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NOS. 1175 TO 1180/CHD/2010 ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2002-03 TO 2007-08 M/S AGRICULTURE PRODUCE MARKET VS. THE ITO COMMITTEE KANGRA DHARAMSHALA PAN NO. AACTA4554B (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SH. SUNIL SEHGAL ADV. RESPONDENT BY : SH. RAVI SARANGAL CIT DR DATE OF HEARING : 17.10.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 21.10.2016 ORDER PER J. SUDHAKAR REDDY AM ALL THESE APPEALS ARE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. AS T HE ISSUE ARISING IN ALL THESE APPEALS IS COMMON FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE THE Y ARE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DEPOSED OF BY WAY OF THIS COMMON ORDER. 2. THERE IS A FIVE DAY DELAY IN FILING OF ITA NOS. 1175 TO 1179/CHD/2010 AND DELAY OF SEVEN DAY IN FILING APPEAL NO. 1180/CHD/20 10 . AFTER PERUSING THE PETITION OF CONDONATION OF DELAY WE CONDONE THE DE LAY AND ADMIT THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE AS WE ARE CONVINCED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS PREVENTED BY SUFFICIENT CAUSE FROM FILING THESE APPEALS IN TIME AND THE DEL AY IS CONDONED. 2 3. THE ASSESSEE IS A AGRICULTURE PRODUCE MARKET COM MITTEE FORMED UNDER THE H.P. AGRICULTURE PRODUCE MARKET ACT 1969. IT WAS E NTRUSTED WITH THE DUTY OF PROVIDING FACILITIES OF MARKETING OF AGRICULTURAL P RODUCTS AND DO OTHER ACTS IN RELATION OF SUPERINTENDENCE DIRECTION AND CONTROL OF MARKET COMMITTEES FOR REGULATING THE MARKETING OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE. 4. THE COMMON ISSUE BEFORE US IS AS TO WHETHER THE ASSESSEE IS A LOCAL AUTHORITY IN TERMS OF SECTION 10(20) OF THE INCOME -TAX ACT 1961 (THE ACT). SECTION 10 OF SUB SECTION (20) OF THE ACT WAS AMEND ED BY THE FINANCE ACT 2002 W.E.F. 1..4.2003 AND AN EXPLANATION WAS INSERTED. T HIS SECTION AND THE EXPLANATION READ AS FOLLOWS:- 20) THE INCOME OF A LOCAL AUTHORITY WHICH IS CHARGE ABLE UNDER THE HEAD [* * *] INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY CAPITAL GAINS OR I NCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES OR FROM A TRADE OR BUSINESS CARRIED ON BY IT WHICH ACCRUES OR ARISES FROM THE SUPPLY OF A COMMODITY OR SERVICE 37 [(NOT BEING WATER OR ELECTRICITY) WITHIN ITS OWN JURISDICTIONAL AREA OR FROM THE SUPP LY OF WATER OR ELECTRICITY WITHIN OR OUTSIDE ITS OWN JURISDICTIONAL AREA]. [EXPLANATION.FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS CLAUSE THE EXPRESSION LOCAL AUTHORITY MEANS (I) PANCHAYAT AS REFERRED TO IN CLAUSE (D) OF ARTIC LE 243 OF THE CONSTITUTION OR (II) MUNICIPALITY AS REFERRED TO IN CLAUSE (E) OF A RTICLE 243P OF THE CONSTITUTION OR (III) MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE AND DISTRICT BOARD LEGALLY ENTITLED TO OR ENTRUSTED BY THE GOVERNMENT WITH THE CONTROL OR MANAGEMENT OF A MUNICIPAL OR LOCAL FUND; OR (IV) CANTONMENT BOARD AS DEFINED IN SECTION 3 OF TH E CANTONMENTS ACT 1924 (2 OF 1924);] 5. ITA NO. 1175/CHD/2010 - THIS APPEAL PERTAIN TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03 WHICH IS PRIOR TO INSERTION OF EXPLANATION TO 10(20 ) OF THE ACT. ALL OTHER APPEALS IN ITA NOS. 1176 TO 1180/CHD.2010 PERTAINS TO ASSESSME NT YEARS 2003-04 TO 2007-08 WHEN THE EXPLANATION IN QUESTION COMES IN FORCE. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND WE HOLD AS FOLLOWS:- 3 (1) FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03 THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE HELD TO BE A LOCAL AUTHORITY IN VIEW OF THE JUDGEMENT OF THE JURISDICT IONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. H.P. MARKETING BOARD ITA NO. 1 OF 2007 ALONGWITH ITA NOS. 17 18 & 19 OF 2007 AND ITA NOS. 18 & 22 OF 2008 JUDGEMENT DATED 26.4.2011. THE ASSESSEE HAS R ELIED ON CERTAIN JUDGEMENTS OF NON-JURISDICTION HIGH COURTS. WE CAN NOT FOLLOW THE SAME IN VIEW OF THE JUDGEMENT OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT. THUS THIS CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. (2) FOR OTHER ASSESSMENT YEARS THE JURISDICTIONAL HIG H COURT IN THE CASE OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKET COMMITTEE SOLAN & O THERS VS. CIT REPORTED IN 250 CTR 432 HELD THAT AMCS ARE NOT ENTI TLED OF EXEMPTION U/S 10(20) OF THE 1961 ACT AFTER INSERTION OF THE S AID EXPLANATION VIDE FINANCE ACT 2002 W.E.F. 1.4.2003. THE JUDGEMENT WAS AUTHORED BY JUSTICE DEV DARSHAN SUD AS HE WAS THEN. RESPECTFUL LY FOLLOWING THE BINDING DECISION OF THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT WE DISMISS THIS CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE OF EXEMPTION U/S 10(20) OF THE ACT FOR ALL THESE ASSESSMENT YEARS. 7. THE SECOND COMMON GROUND IN ALL THE APPEALS IS THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD CLAIM ITSELF AS AN AGENCY OF THE STATE GOVERN MENT SO AS TO GET IMMUNITY FROM TAXATION UNDER ARTICLE 289(1) OF THE CONSTITUT ION OF INDIA. THE LD. CIT(A) SUBMITTED THAT HE WITHDRAWS THIS GROUND. HENCE THE SAME IS DISMISSED AS WITHDRAWN. 8. GROUND NO.3 OF THE APPEAL READS AS FOLLOWS:- 3. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE THE LD. CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED WHEN THE POINT RAISED IN APPEAL THAT THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT JUSTIFIED T\O TAKE THE CASE UNDER SECTION 147 OF TH E INCOME-TAX ACT 1961 ON THE BASIS OF SURVEY 4 CONDUCTED UNDER SECTION 133 OF THE I.T. ACT ON THE OFFICE PREMISES OF THE APMC WHEN THEY ARE NOT DOING ANY BUSINESS ACTIVITIES. 9. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT ADVANC ED ANY ARGUMENT AGAINST THIS GROUND THUS THE SAME IS DISMISSED 10. GROUND NO.4 IS AGAINST LEVY OF INTEREST U/S 234 A AND 234B OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT 1961. LEVY OF INTEREST IS CONSEQUEN TIAL IN NATURE. HENCE THIS GROUND IS DISMISSED. 11. THE GROUND NOS. 5 AND 6 ARE GENERAL IN NATURE. 12. IN THE RESULT THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 21/10/2016. SD/- SD/- [J.SUDHAKAR REDDY] [JUSTICE (RETD.)D EV DARSHAN SUD] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PRESIDENT DATED : 21 OCTOBER 2016 RKK COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE DR