ITO, Panchkula v. Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board, Panchkula

ITA 37/CHANDI/2012 | 2005-2006
Pronouncement Date: 29-02-2012 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 3721514 RSA 2012
Assessee PAN AAALH0016R
Bench Chandigarh
Appeal Number ITA 37/CHANDI/2012
Duration Of Justice 1 month(s) 17 day(s)
Appellant ITO, Panchkula
Respondent Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board, Panchkula
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 29-02-2012
Appeal Filed By Department
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted A
Tribunal Order Date 29-02-2012
Assessment Year 2005-2006
Appeal Filed On 12-01-2012
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH A CHANDIGARH BEFORE MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MEHAR SINGH ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.10/CHD/2012 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005-06) HARYANA STATE AGRICULTURAL VS. THE D.C.I.T. MARKETING BOARD PANCHKULA CIRCLE PANCHKULA. PANCHKULA. PAN: AAALH0016R AND ITA NO.37/CHD/2012 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005-06) THE D.C.I.T. VS. HARYANA STATE AGRICULTURAL PANCHKULA CIRCLE MARKETING BOARD PANCHKULA. PANCHKULA. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI HARISH NAYYAR DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI AKHILESH GUPTA DR DATE OF HEARING : 23.02.2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 29.02.2012 O R D E R PER SUSHMA CHOWLA J.M : THESE CROSS APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE R EVENUE ARE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) PANCHKULA DATED 04.11.2011 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT Y EAR 2005-06 AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED U/S 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961. 2. BOTH THESE APPEALS BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE REVEN UE WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OFF BY THIS CONSOLI DATED ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 3. THE LEARNED A.R. FOR THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT TH AT THE ASSESSEE IN ITS APPEAL IS AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHOR ITIES BELOW IN NOT 2 FOLLOWING THE DIRECTIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL AND IN ADJ UDICATING THE MATTER IN A SUMMARY MANNER. THE LEARNED A.R. FOR THE ASSESSE E FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT THE ISSUES RAISED IN THE APPEAL FILED BY T HE REVENUE ARE COVERED BY THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE AND ADMITTEDLY THE SAID ISSUES HAVE BEEN DECIDED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. 4. THE LEARNED D.R. FOR THE REVENUE PLACED RELIANCE ON THE ORDERS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND CIT (APPEALS) AND POINTED OUT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO FURNISH THE INFORMATION FOR THE APPLICATION OF INCOME AND IN THE ABSENCE OF THE SAME THE ORDER OF THE CIT (APPEALS) MERITS TO BE UPHELD. THE LEARNED D.R. FOR THE REVE NUE FURTHER CONCEDED THAT THE ISSUES IN THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE ARE COVERED BY THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE RELATI NG TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORD. ITA NO.10/CHD/2012(ASSESSEES APPEAL) 6. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED VARIOUS GROUNDS OF APPEA L BUT THE ISSUE RAISED IN THE PRESENT APPEAL IS IN RESPECT OF THE A PPLICATION OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 11(2) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. THE ASSES SMENT IN THE CASE WAS FRAMED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AT RS.10 79 32 386/ - AGAINST NIL INCOME DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE CIT (APPEALS) ALLOWE D THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ON SOME GROUNDS. AGGRIEVED WITH THE ORDER OF THE CIT (APPEALS) BOTH THE ASSESSEE AND THE REVENUE FILED A PPEALS BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. THE TRIBUNAL WHILE ADJUDICATING THE APPE AL OF THE ASSESSEE VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 25.05.2009 IN ITA NO.225/CHD/2 009 SET ASIDE THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO VERIF Y THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ITS ORDER HELD AS UNDE R: 3 A COMMON PLEA TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE IN BOTH THE APPEALS IS THAT EVEN WHEN THE INCOMES IN DISPUTE AR E LIABLE TO BE ASSESSED AS NORMAL INCOME THE INCOME APPLIED DURING THE YEAR TOWARDS THE STATED OBJECTS EXCEEDS THE STATUTORY LIMIT OF 85% AND THEREFORE TH ERE DOES NOT REMAIN ANY TAXABLE INCOME. THE LD.CIT DR STATED THAT THUS WAS A FACTUAL ASPECT. IN VIEW OF THIS ARGUMENT THIS ISSUE IS REMANDED BAC K TO THE FILE OF THE LD.AO TO VERIFY THE CLAIM OF THE AS SESSEE AND DIF FOUND CORRECT THEN NECESSARY RELIEF MAY BE GRANTED. THE ASSESSEE MAY BE PROVIDED DUE OPPORTUN ITY TO SUBSTANTIATE ITS CLAIM THEREFORE THIS GROUND OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 7. IN THE SECOND ROUND OF THE PROCEEDINGS BOTH THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE CIT (APPEALS) HAVE NOT ADDRESSED THE ISSUE IN THE PROPER PERSPECTIVE. IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ISSUE NEEDS TO BE RE-ADJUDICATED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THIS REGARD AND CONSEQUENTLY WE SET ASIDE THE ISSUE AGAIN BACK TO T HE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO VERIFY THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE I N LINE WITH THE DIRECTIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ORDER DATED 25.5.20 09. THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO DIRECTED TO FILE NECESSARY INFORMATION/EVIDENC E BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ESTABLISH ITS CLAIM. THE ASSESSING OFFI CER SHALL AFFORD REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. CONSEQUENTLY GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED FOR ST ATISTICAL PURPOSES. ITA NO.37/CHD/2012(REVENUES APPEAL) 8. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUND OF A PPEAL: 1. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN NOT TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE AMOUNT OF RS.70 59 001/- (I.E.RS.57 50 251/- INTEREST AMOUNT & 13 08 750/- SALE OF TENDER FORMS) FOR CALCULATION OF SHORTFALL OF APPLICATION INCOME DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE SAID AMOUNT WAS TREATED AS INCOME BY THE LD.CIT(A) IN ITS ORDER IN APPEAL NO.130/PKL/2007-08 DATED 15.09.2008. 9. THE REVENUE IS AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE ASS ESSEE IN NOT TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE INTEREST EARNED AND THE INCO ME FROM SALE OF TENDER 4 FORMS FOR CALCULATION OF SHORTFALL OF APPLICATION O F INCOME. THE TOTAL AMOUNT UNDER CONSIDERATION IS RS.70 59 001/-. THE CIT (APPEALS) HAD ONLY CONSIDERED THE CONTRIBUTION FROM MCS RENT IN TEREST RECOVERED AND OTHER MISCELLANEOUS RECEIPTS AT RS.54 31 99 430/-. 10. THE LEARNED A.R. FOR THE ASSESSEE FAIRLY POINTE D OUT THAT THE ISSUE IN THE PRESENT CASE STANDS COVERED AGAINST THE ASSE SSEE BY THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE RELATING TO ASS ESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 IN ITA NO.1003/CHD/2009. THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ORDER D ATED 30.3.2010 UNDER GROUND NO.5 HAD OBSERVED AS UNDER: 3. GROUND NO. 5 RELATES TO ADDITION OF RS.1 09 01 506/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF DEPOSIT WORK. THE CIT(APPEALS) HAS SUSTAINED THE ADDITION ON THE GROUND THAT SIMIL AR ISSUE WAS DECIDED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRECEDING YEAR BY HIS PREDECESSOR CIT(APPEALS). THE CIT(APPEALS) HAS FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE ORDER OF THE CIT(APPEALS) OF THE PAST YEAR HAS NOT BEEN AGITATED BY THE ASSESSEE IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. ACCORDINGLY ADDITION HAS BEEN UPHELD. 4. BEFORE US THE FACT POSITION NOTED BY THE CIT(A PPEALS) IS NOT ASSAILED. THE CIT(APPEALS) HAS NOTED THAT THERE IS NO EVIDENCE ON RECORD TO ESTABLISH THAT TH E AMOUNT INVESTED IN FDRS BELONG TO THE MARKET COMMITTEE AND NOT TO THE APPELLANT AND THEREFORE A S PER HIM THE INTEREST EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE HAS BE EN RIGHTLY ASSESSED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. AT THE TIME OF HEARING NO COGENT MATERIAL AND EVIDENCE HA S BEEN LED BY THE APPELLANT WHICH WOULD REQUIRE US TO INTERFERE WITH THE ABOVE FINDING DRAWN BY THE CIT(APPEALS). IN VIEW OF THE ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE A ND ALSO THE PRECEDENT IN ASSESSEE'S OWN CASE WE FIND NO JUSTIFICATION TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE CIT(APPEALS). ACCORDINGLY GROUND NO. 5 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 5. GROUND NO. 6 AND 7 RELATE TO ADDITIONS OF RS.10 57 800/- AND RS.6 00 700/- ON ACCOUNT OF SALE ON TENDER FORMS AND ESTABLISHMENT FEES PAID BY THE CONTRACTOR RESPECTIVELY. ON THESE ADDITIONS ALSO WE FIND THAT THE CIT(APPEALS) HAS NOTICED THAT IN THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR THE ISSUE WA S DECIDED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE AND FOLLOWING THE SAME IMPUGNED ADDITION HAS BEEN UPHELD. THE SAID POSITION CONTINUES EVEN BEFORE US AND THERE IS NO MATERIAL BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE APPELLANT TO THE CONTRARY. ACCORDINGLY GROUND NOS. 6 & 7 RAISED BY THE APPELLANT ARE DISMISSED AS BEING BEREFT OF MERI T. 5 11. THE ISSUE RAISED IN THE PRESENT APPEALS FILED B Y THE REVENUE IS IDENTICAL TO THE ISSUE RAISED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL I N ASSESSEES OWN CASE RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 AND FOLLOWING T HE SAME WE REVERSE THE ORDER OF THE CIT (APPEALS). THE GROUND OF APP EAL RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS THUS ALLOWED. 12. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS AL LOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES AND THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 29 TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2012. SD/- SD/- (MEHAR SINGH) (SUSHMA CHOWLA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 29 TH FEBRUARY 2012 *RATI* COPY TO: THE APPELLANT/THE RESPONDENT/THE CIT(A)/TH E CIT/THE DR. TRUE COPY BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT CHANDIGARH 6