The Krishi Upaj mandi Samiti, Sanawad v. The ACIT, Indore

ITA 309/IND/2010 | 2006-2007
Pronouncement Date: 18-07-2011 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 30922714 RSA 2010
Assessee PAN AAALK0248E
Bench Indore
Appeal Number ITA 309/IND/2010
Duration Of Justice 1 year(s) 2 month(s) 1 day(s)
Appellant The Krishi Upaj mandi Samiti, Sanawad
Respondent The ACIT, Indore
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 18-07-2011
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted DB
Tribunal Order Date 18-07-2011
Assessment Year 2006-2007
Appeal Filed On 17-05-2010
Judgment Text
1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH INDORE BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI R.C. SHARMA ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.292/IND/2010 AY: 2006-07 ASSTT. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX 5(1) INDORE ..APPELLANT V/S. KRISHI UPAJ MANDI SAMITI SANAWAD PAN AAALK 0248 E ..RESPONDENT ITA NO.309/IND/2010 AY: 2006-07 KRISHI UPAJ MANDI SAMITI SANAWAD ..APPELLANT VS ASSTT. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX 5(1) INDORE ..RESPONDENT DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI ARUN DEWAN SR. DR ASSESSEE BY : SHRI NITIN AGRAWAL CA 2 ORDER PER JOGINDER SINGH JUDICIAL MEMBER THE REVENUE AS WELL AS THE ASSESSEE ARE IN CROSS APPEALS AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSION ER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) DATED 4.2.2010. THE REVENUE HA S CHALLENGED THE DELETION OF ADDITIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF ARAKSHIT NIDHI (RS. 251655/-) KRISHI ANUSANDHAN NIDHI (RS.937235/-) KISAN SADAK NIDHI (RS.7966500/-) AND MANDI BOARD SHULK (RS.1689268/-) WHEREAS THE ASSESSEE IS IN APP EAL AGAINST THE SAME ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IN NOT ALLOWING DEPRECIATION AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE ON WDV AS ON 1.4.2005 BY HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE SAMITI IS NOT ENTITLED TO EXEMPTION U/S 11(A) TO (D) WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE REVISED RETURN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND ALSO IN OP INING THAT NO PROPER AND VALID CLAIM U/S 11 WAS LODGED BE FORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 3 2. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTI ES AND HAVE GONE THROUGH THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON THE FILE. THE CRUX OF ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE IS T HAT THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS MERELY RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL AND DECIDED ON THE BAS IS THAT THE ISSUES ARE COVERED BY THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL. ON THE OTHER HAND THE LD. COUNSEL FOR TH E ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS GRANTED REGISTRATION U/S 12AA OF THE ACT. 3. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS OF LD. REPRESENTATIVES OF BOTH SIDES AND PERUSED THE MATER IAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT ON THE SIMILAR FA CTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES THE SIMILAR ISSUES INVOLVED IN THE P RESENT CROSS-APPEALS HAVE ALREADY BEEN DECIDED IN CASE OF KRISHI UPAJ MANDI SAMITI BARWAH (ITA NOS.279 & 308/IND/2010 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07) VIDE ORDER DATED 4 TH JULY 2011. THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE 4 ORDER DATED 4 TH JULY 2011 (SUPRA) IS REPRODUCED HEREUNDER: THE REVENUE AS WELL AS THE ASSESSEE ARE IN CROSS APPEALS AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) DATED 4.2.2010. THE REVENUE HAS CHALLENGED THE DELETION O F ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT O F ARAKSHIT NIDHI (RS. 2 65 330/-) KRISHI ANUSANDHAN NIDHI (RS. 5 32 895/-) KISAN SADAK NIDHI (RS. 43 89 598/-) AND MANDI BOARD SHULK (RS. 3 99 391/-) WHEREAS THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL AGAINST THE SAME ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IN NOT ALLOWING DEPRECIATION AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE ON WDV AS ON 1.4.2005 BY HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE SAMITI IS NOT ENTITLED TO EXEMPTION U/ S 11(A) TO (D) WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE REVISED RETURN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND ALSO IN OPINING THAT NO PROPER AND VALID CLAIM U/S 11 WAS LODGED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 2. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES AND HAVE GONE THROUGH THE MATERIAL AVAILABL E ON THE FILE. THE CRUX OF ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE IS THAT THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY H AS MERELY RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL AND DECIDED ON THE BASIS THAT THE ISSUES ARE COVERED BY THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF KUMS SANAWAD. ON THE OTHER HAND THE LD. COUNSEL FOR TH E ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS GRANTED REGISTRATION U/S 12AA OF THE ACT FOR WHICH OUR ATTENTION WAS INVITED TO PAGE 10 OF THE PAPER BOOK. 3. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS OF LD. REPRESENTATIVES OF BOTH SIDES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT THE LEAR NED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS DECIDED THE ISSUES BROADLY ON THE BASIS OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL AS CLAIMED BEFORE US. HOWEVER WE FIND TH AT SINCE THE ASSESSEE WAS GRANTED REGISTRATION U/S 12A VIDE ORDER DATED 19.7.2007 BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX INDORE PURSUANT TO THE DIRECTION OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 6.6.2007 WITH EFFE CT FROM THE CREATION OF THE ASSESSEE SAMITI THEREFORE THE WHOLE ISSUE NEEDS RE-EXAMINATION AT THE LEVEL OF TH E ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS SUPPOSE D TO EXAMINE WHETHER THE INCOME HAS BEEN APPLIED FOR 5 CHARITABLE PURPOSES AS PRESCRIBED UNDER THE ACT. A S FAR AS THE BENEFIT U/S 11 OF THE ACT IS CONCERNED A CONJOINT READING OF SECTIONS 11 12 AND 12A MAKES I T CLEAR THAT REGISTRATION U/S 12A IS A CONDITION PRECEDENT FOR AVAILING BENEFIT U/S 11 AND 12 OF THE ACT. THE ACCUMULATED OR SET APART INCOME SHOULD NOT BE IN EXCESS OF 15% OF THE TOTAL INCOME AND 85% OF THE INCOME SHOULD BE APPLIED FOR CHARITABLE PURPOSES. LIKEWISE IN THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE THE ASSESSE E IS AGGRIEVED BY THE DECISION OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) BY HOLDING THA T THE INCOME OF THE SAMITI IS NOT ENTITLED TO EXEMPTI ON U/S 11(A) TO (D) OF THE ACT. THE IMPUGNED ORDER IS DATED 4.2.2010 WHEREAS THE ASSESSEE WAS GRANTED REGISTRATION U/S 12A VIDE ORDER DATED 19.7.2007. IT SEEMS THAT THIS FACT WAS NOT BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) CONSEQUENTLY THROUGH CX E IMPUGNED ORDER IS SET ASIDE AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO RE- EXAMINE THE ISSUES INVOLVED IN THESE APPEALS IN THE LIGHT OF THE REGISTRATION GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE U /S 12A/12AA OF THE ACT AND DECIDE THE ISSUES IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW FOR WHICH DUE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD BE PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE. FINALLY THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE AS WELL AS OF T HE REVENUE ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT IN THE PRESENCE OF LEARNED REPRESENTATIVES OF BOTH THE SIDES AT THE CONCLUSION OF HEARING ON 4 TH JULY 2011. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL THE IMP UGNED ORDER IS SET ASIDE AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIR ECTED TO RE-EXAMINE THE ISSUES INVOLVED IN THESE CROSS-APPEA LS IN THE LIGHT OF THE REGISTRATION GRANTED TO THE ASSESS EE U/S 12A/12AA OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS FURTH ER 6 DIRECTED TO EXAMINE THE EXTENT OF APPLICATION OF IN COME BY THE ASSESSEE AND THEN DECIDE THE ISSUES IN ACCOR DANCE WITH LAW FOR WHICH DUE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD B E PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE. FINALLY THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE AS WELL AS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES ONLY. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT IN THE PRESENCE OF LEARNED REPRESENTATIVES OF BOTH THE SIDES AT THE CONCLUSION OF HEARING ON 18 TH JULY 2011. (R.C. SHARMA) (JOGINDER SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATE: 18 TH JULY 2011 COPY TO: APPELLANT/RESPONDENT/CIT/CIT(A)/DR/GUARD F ILE !VYS! 7