M/s Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Indore v. The DCIT, 1(1), Indore

ITA 169/IND/2011 | 2007-2008
Pronouncement Date: 27-09-2011 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 16922714 RSA 2011
Assessee PAN AAAJS2043M
Bench Indore
Appeal Number ITA 169/IND/2011
Duration Of Justice 1 month(s) 26 day(s)
Appellant M/s Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Indore
Respondent The DCIT, 1(1), Indore
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 27-09-2011
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted DB
Tribunal Order Date 27-09-2011
Assessment Year 2007-2008
Appeal Filed On 01-08-2011
Judgment Text
1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH INDORE BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH JM AND SHRI R.C. SHARMA AM ITA NOS.168 TO 170/IND/2011 AYS: 2006-07 TO 2008-09 KRISHI UPAJ MANDI SAMITI GAUTAMPURA INDORE PAN AAAJS 2043 M APPELLANT VS. DCIT-1(1) INDORE RESPONDENT ITA NOS.188 TO 190/IND/2011 AYS: 2006-07 TO 2008-09 DCIT-1(1) INDORE APPELLANT VS. KRISHI UPAJ MANDI SAMITI GAUTAMPURA INDORE PAN AAAJS 2043 M RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : SHRI AJAY TULSIYAN & SHRI MANISH VAIDYA CAS DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI ARUN DEWAN SR. DR DATE OF HEARING : 23.9.2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 27.9.2011 ORDER 2 PER BENCH THESE CROSS-APPEALS ARE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND R EVENUE RESPECTIVELY AGAINST THE DIFFERENT ORDERS OF LD. C IT(A)-I INDORE DATED 25.5.2011 FOR THE AYS 2006-07 TO 2008-09 IN T HE MATTER OF ORDER PASSED U/S 143(3) OF THE I.T. ACT. THE FOLLOW ING COMMON GROUNDS IN THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE HAVE BEEN RA ISED: 1. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE AO HAS RIGHTLY COMPUTED THE INCOME UNDER THE HEAD BUSINESS INCOME AND ALSO ERRED IN NOT GRANTING REGISTRATION U/S 12A AND NOT GIVING SUITABLE DIRECTIONS TO THE AO AS PRAYED BY THE APPELLANT TO WHICH IT IS LEGALLY ELIGIBLE. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES AND AS PER THE DECISION O F THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT THE APPELLANT IS VERY MU CH ENTITLED TO REGISTRATION U/S 12A WHICH MAY VERY KI NDLY BE NOW ALLOWED. 2. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE AO HAS RIGHTLY DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF EXEMPTION U/S 11 OF THE I.T . ACT 1961. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND AS PER LAW THE APPELLANT IS ELIGIBLE FOR E XEMPTION U/S 11 WHICH MAY VERY KINDLY BE NOW ALLOWED. WHEREAS IN THE DEPARTMENTAL APPEALS THE REVENUE H AS CHALLENGED THE DELETION OF ADDITIONS MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF 3 DISALLOWANCES OF DEDUCTIONS OF MANDI BOARD FEE SAD AK NIDHI PENSION FUND GAU SANRAKSHAN NIDHI & GOSHALA ANUDAN CONTRIBUTION TO AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH ARAKSHIT NID HI KRISHI ANUSANDHAN & ADHOSANRACHANA NIDHI. 2. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND HAVE GONE THR OUGH THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE FACTS IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED ITS RETURNS DECLARING TOTAL INCO ME AT NIL AFTER CLAIMING EXEMPTION U/S 12A. THE LD. AO OBSERVED THA T REGISTRATION U/S 12AA HAS NOT BEEN GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE. HE W AS THEREFORE OF THE VIEW THAT EXPENDITURES IN QUESTION COULD NEI THER BE ALLOWED AS AN EXPENDITURE U/S 36(1)(XII)/37(1) NOR COULD BE CONSIDERED AS AN APPLICATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH SEC. 11. ACCORDIN GLY THE AO MADE THE ADDITIONS ASSESSING THE ASSESSEES INCOME UNDER THE HEAD BUSINESS INCOME. 3. AGGRIEVED WITH THE ACTION OF THE AO THE ASSESSE E PREFERRED APPEALS BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). THE LD. CIT(A) NOTED IN HIS ORDERS THAT REGISTRATION U/S 12A IS YET NOT RECEIVED BY THE CIT -I INDORE. THE APPLICATION DATED 6.1.2006 OF THE ASSESSEE IS STILL PENDING BEFORE THE CIT-I INDORE. IN THE ABSENCE OF THE REGISTRATI ON THE AO COULD NOT HAVE ALLOWED THE BENEFIT OF SEC. 11. THE JURISD ICTIONAL HIGH 4 COURT AS WELL AS THE TRIBUNAL OF COURSE HAVE TAKE N A VIEW THAT KRISHI UPAJ MANDI SAMITIES ARE ENTITLED FOR REGISTR ATION U/S 12A BUT THIS WILL REQUIRE SUBMISSION OF APPLICATION IN THE OFFICE OF CONCERNED COMMISSIONER. THE REGISTRATION IS TO BE G RANTED BY ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER IN WRITING. THE APPELLATE COMMI SSIONER IS NOT THE APPROPRIATE FORUM TO GIVE ANY DECISION TO THE D ELAY IN THE DECISION OR REJECTION OF THE APPLICATION OF THE REG ISTRATION. THE LD. CIT(A) WAS THEREFORE OF THE VIEW THAT SINCE THE A SSESSEE HAS NOT OBTAINED REGISTRATION U/S 12A AS ON NOW THE AO IS RIGHT IN DISALLOWING THE CLAIM OF EXEMPTION U/S 11 OF THE AC T. HOWEVER LD. CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITIONS IN QUESTION CONSIDERIN G THE DECISIONS OF THE INDORE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF KRISHI UPAJ MAND I SAMITI BURHANPUR (12 ITJ 12) AND KRISHI UPAJ MANDI SAMITI MHOW (ITA NO.293 & 294/IND/2008 ORDER DATED 18.11.2009). 4. AGGRIEVED WITH THE ORDERS OF THE LD. CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE AND REVENUE ARE IN APPEALS BEFORE US. THE LD. COUNSEL F OR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT APPLICATION DATED 6.1.2006 FOR REGIS TRATION U/S 12A HAS NOT BEEN DISPOSED OF WITHIN THE SPECIFIED TIME OF SIX MONTHS BY THE LD. CIT-I INDORE DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE REQ UIREMENTS SOUGHT 5 BY THE LD. CIT-I INDORE WERE FULFILLED BY THE ASSE SSEE FROM TIME TO TIME AND REMINDERS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WITH REGAR D TO REGISTRATION HAD ALSO NOT BEEN REPLIED. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THA T EVEN AS ON NOW LD. CIT DID NOT DISPOSE OF THE SAID APPLICATIO N FOR REGISTRATION THEREFORE IT IS DEEMED THAT ASSESSEE HAS BEEN GRAN TED REGISTRATION AS PER THE REQUESTS MADE IN THE SAID APPLICATION AN D AS SUCH THE ASSESSEE IS ELIGIBLE FOR EXEMPTION U/S 11. ON THE O THER HAND LD. SR. DR RELIED UPON THE ORDERS OF THE LD. CIT(A). SO FAR AS DELETION OF ADDITIONS IN QUESTION ARE CONCERNED THE LD. COUNSE L FOR THE ASSESSEE RELIED UPON THE ORDERS OF THE LD. CIT(A) W HEREAS LD. SR. DR RELIED UPON THE ORDERS OF THE AO. 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND HAVE GONE THROUGH THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON REC ORD. WE FIND THAT IT IS AN ADMITTED FACT THAT THE OUTCOME OF THE SAID APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION HAS NOT COME ON RECORD SO FAR. IT IS NOT KNOWN WHETHER OR NOT THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN GRANTED REGIST RATION. DESPITE REMINDERS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE FROM TIME TO TIME N O ORDER WITH REGARD TO REGISTRATION HAS BEEN PROVIDED BY THE LD. CIT-I INDORE TO THE ASSESSEE AND LD. SR. DR HAS ALSO NOT CONTROVERT ED THE FACTS WITH 6 REGARD TO THE REGISTRATION AS DISCUSSED HEREINABOVE THROUGH ANY EVIDENCE OR SUBMISSION ON RECORD. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS & CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PRESENT CROSS-APPEALS AS NARRA TED ABOVE WE DIRECT THE AO TO ASCERTAIN FROM THE CONCERNED DIT/C IT WHETHER OR NOT THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN GRANTED THE REGISTRATION WITHIN THE SPECIFIED PERIOD OF SIX MONTHS. IF IT IS FOUND THAT ASSESSEES APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION HAS NOT BEEN DISPOSED OF WITHIN THE SPECIFIED PERIOD OF SIX MONTHS THEN AO IS DIRECTED TO DEEM THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN GRANTED REGISTRATION AS PER REQUE STS MADE IN THE SAID APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION. THE AO IS THERE FORE DIRECTED TO REFRAME THE ASSESSMENTS DE NOVO IN THE LIGHT OF THE OBSERVATIONS/DIRECTIONS MADE IN THIS ORDER. IN RESULT THESE CROSS-APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE AND REVENUE ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES IN TERMS INDICATED HEREINABOVE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 27.9.2011. SD/- SD/- (JOGINDER SINGH) (R.C. SHARMA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 27.9.2011 !VYAS!