M/s. Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Mhow V. The Income Tax Officer, 5(3), Indore

ITA 118/IND/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5721 (ITAT-INDORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 7 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-10-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 05-10-2016
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 28-02-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MOHD JAVED
• Keywords: Revised return; Revenue expenditure
• Section: 143(3); 80IB; 11

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, INDORE BENCH, INDORE .., .., % BEFORE SHRI D.T. GARASIA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER KRISHI UPAJ MANDI SAMITI, MANDI PRANGAN, DONGAR GAON, MHOW .. ./ PAN: AAFFK5074P VS. ITO, 5(3), INDORE / APPELLANT / RESPONDENT / APPELLANT BY SHRI PRAKASH JAIN, CA / RESPONDENT BY SHRI MOHD. JAVED, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING 05.10.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 05.10.2016 / O R D E R PER O.P. MEENA, ACCOUTANT MEMEBR. THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE OR DER OF LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-II, INDORE .. . / I.T.A. NO.118/IND/2013 %' ' / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09 I.T.A.NO.118/IND/2013 KUMC, MHOW V. ITO,5(3),INDORE A.Y. 2008-09 PAGE 2 OF 9 [HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE CIT(A)] DATED 01.01 .2013 AND PERTAINS TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 AS AGAINST APPE AL DECIDED IN ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S 143(3) DAT ED 27.12.2010 OF ITO WARD 5(3) INDORE [HEREINAFTER REF ERRED TO AS THE AO]. 2. THERE WERE THREE GROUNDS OF APPEAL OUT OF WHICH TWO GROUNDS OF APPEAL HAVE BEEN WITHDRAWN AS THE SAME ARE ALLOWED U/S 154. THE ONLY GROUND OF APPEAL REMAINED TO BE ADJUDICATED WHICH READS AS UNDER :- THE LD. CIT(A)-II, HAS ERRED IN PASSING AN ORDER UNDER SECTION 250 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961., THAT THE CIT(A)-II HAD NOT ACCEPTED THE INVESTMENT IN FIXED ASSETS AT RS. 50,00,000/-. 3. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THE WRITT EN SYNOPSIS, WHICH READS AS UNDER :- 1] THIS GROUND RELATES TO THE NON ALLOWING DEDUCTION OF RS. 50,00,000/- MADE IN FIXED ACQUISIT ION OF FIXED ASSETS FOR THE REASON THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS N OT TAKEN THIS DEDUCTION IN APPLICATION OF FUND AS PER AUDIT REPORT AND SO ALSO IN THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME. TH US THE LD. CIT (A) BY MAKING FOLLOWING OBSERVATION : - PAGE 4 & 5 PARA 10 ' AS PER AUDIT REPORT INVESTMENT IN FIXED ASSETS BY APPELLANT I.T.A.NO.118/IND/2013 KUMC, MHOW V. ITO,5(3),INDORE A.Y. 2008-09 PAGE 3 OF 9 IS SHOWN AT RS. 39,75,705 AFTER REMOVING ANOTHER AD DITION OF FIXED ASSETS OF RS. 50 LAKHS BECAUSE THAT IS DON E FROM LOAN TAKEN FROM BOARD. THEREFORE APPELLANT HAS ITSE LF REMOVED IT IN AUDIT REPORT BECAUSE SUCH ADDITION IS NOT FROM INCOME/ RECEIPT OF APPELLANT. IF WE REDUCE SUC H ADDITION TO ASSETS OF RS. 39,75,705 FROM NET SURPLU S DERIVED ABOVE ' OF RS. 1,03,77,377 THAT STILL LEAVES A SURP LUS OF RS. 64,01,672 , BUT UNDER SECTION 11 OF THE IT.ACT ALLOWABLE SURPLUS IS 15% OF TOTAL RECEIPT I.E. 15% OF RS. 2,42,49,958 WHICH COMES TO RS. 36,37,493. THE EXCESS SURPLUS LEFT COMES TO RS. 27,64,178 ( 64,01,672 - 36,37,493). AS THIS SURPLUS IS NEITHER USED TOWARDS OBJECTS OF TRUST NO R IT IS PUT IN SPECIFIED SECURITIES AFTER TAKING APPROVAL OF AD . AS A RESULT, THIS SURPLUS OF RS. 27,64,178 BECOMES TAXABLE U/S 11 OF THE I TACT. IT IS TRUE THAT THE AUDITOR WRONGLY EXCLUDED THE AM OUNT OF RS. 50,00,000 BEING LOAN TAKEN FROM THE BOARD DUE T O THE LACK OF KNOWLEDGE . THE HON'BLE APEX COURT IN T HE CASE OF SATYA VIJAY PATEL HINDU VIS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (1972) 86 ITR 683 (GUJ.) 2] AS TO THE LD. CIT(A) CONTENTION THAT THE AUDITO R HIMSELF DEDUCTED THE AMOUNT OF ASSETS WHICH WERE ACQUIRED BY TAKING THE INTEREST FREE LOAN OF RS.50, 00,000 FROM MANDI BOARD, HENCE SAME IS NOT ALLOWABLE. IT I S SUBMITTED THAT ARTICLE 265 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF I NDIA LAYS DOWN THAT NO TAX SHALL BE LEVIED EXCEPT WHEN AUTHORISED BY LAW. FOLLOWING THIS ARTICLE, ONLY LEG ITIMATE TAX CAN BE RECOVERED AND EVEN A CONCESSION BY A TAX - PAYER DOES NOT GIVE AUTHORITY TO THE TAX COLLECTOR TO RECOVER MORE THAN WHAT IS DUE FROM HIM UNDER THE LA W. 3] THE CBDT'S BY RELYING ON THE ARTICLE 265 OF THE CONSTITUTION ISSUED CIRCULAR NO. 14(XL-35) DATED 1- 4-1955 IN THE SAID CIRCULAR, THE CBDT OBSERVED THAT: '3. OFFICERS OF THE DEPARTMENT MUST NOT TAKE ADVANT AGE OF IGNORANCE OF AN ASSESSEE AS TO HIS RIGHTS. IT IS ON E OF THEIR DUTIES TO ASSIST A TAXPAYER IN EVERY REASONABLE WAY , PARTICULARLY IN THE MATTER OF CLAIMING AND SECURING RELIEFS AND IN THIS REGARD THE OFFICERS SHOULD TAKE THE INI TIATIVE IN GUIDING A TAXPAYER WHERE PROCEEDINGS OR OTHER PARTI CULARS BEFORE THEM INDICATE THAT SOME REFUND OR RELIEF IS DUE TO HIM. THIS ATTITUDE WOULD, IN THE LONG RUN, BENEFIT THE DEPARTMENT FOR IT WOULD INSPIRE CONFIDENCE IN HIM T HAT HE I.T.A.NO.118/IND/2013 KUMC, MHOW V. ITO,5(3),INDORE A.Y. 2008-09 PAGE 4 OF 9 MAY BE SURE OF GETTING A SQUARE DEAL FROM THE DEPAR TMENT. ALTHOUGH, THEREFORE, THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR CLAIMIN G REFUNDS AND RELIEFS RESTS WITH ASSESSEE ON WHOM IT IS IMPOS ED BY LAW, OFFICERS SHOULD:- (A) DRAW THEIR ATTENTION TO ANY REFUNDS OR RELIEFS TO W HICH THEY APPEAR TO BE CLEARLY ENTITLED BUT WHICH THEY HAVE O MITTED TO CLAIM FOR SOME REASON OR OTHER; (B) FREELY ADVISE THEM WHEN APPROACHED BY THEM AS TO TH EIR RIGHTS AND LIABILITIES AND AS TO THE PROCEDURE TO B E ADOPTED FOR CLAIMING REFUNDS AND RELIEFS.' 4] THE INTENTION OF ABOVE CIRCULAR IS NOT THAT TAX DUE SHOULD NOT BE CHARGED OR THAT ANY FAVOUR SHOULD BE SHOWN TO ANYBODY IN THE MATTER OF ASSESSMENT, OR THAT WHE RE INVESTIGATIONS ARE CALLED FOR, THEY SHOULD NOT BE M ADE. WHATEVER THE LEGITIMATE TAX IT MUST BE ASSESSED AND MUST BE COLLECTED. THE PURPOSE OF THIS CIRCULAR IS MERELY T O EMPHASISE THAT WE SHOULD NOT TAKE ADVANTAGE OF AN ASSESSEE'S IGNORANCE TO COLLECT MORE TAX OUT OF HIM THAN IS LEGITIMATELY DUE FROM HIM.' THE ABOVE CIRCULAR HAS BEEN JUDICIALLY NOTED AND AP PROVED IN MANY JUDGMENTS AND HAS BEEN RELIED UPON IN SUPPO RT OF THE ASSESSEES' CLAIM. 5] AN ASSESSEE, AFTER FILING THE RETURN, MAY AT A LATER STAGE, REALISE THAT A CLAIM OR DEDUCTION ALLOWABLE UNDER T HE ACT HAS BEEN OMITTED OR THE QUANTUM THEREOF IS NOT CORRECT. IF T HE RETURN HAS BEEN FILED BY THE DUE DATE AS PRESCRIBED AND A PERI OD OF ONE YEAR FROM THE END OF THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR HAS NO T ELAPSED, HE MAY REVISE THE RETURN BY FILING A REVISED RETURN. 6] IF HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE, FILED THE RETURN AFTE R THE DUE DATE, HE WOULD NOT BE ENTITLED TO FILE A REVISED RETURN A S HELD IN JAGDISH KUMAR SINHA V. CIT 220 ITR 67 (SC). IN CASE THE ASS ESSEE FILED THE RETURN BY DUE DATE, BUT A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR FROM T HE END OF THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR HAS ELAPSED, SUBSEQUENTLY NOTICES THAT PROPER DEDUCTION WAS NOT CLAIMED, STILL HE CAN NOT REVISE THE RETURN. WHAT CAN THE ASSESSEE DO IN SUCH A SITUATIO N? SHOULD HE BE DENIED THE PROPER DEDUCTION OR SOME RESPITE IS AVAI LABLE TO HIM? 7] GOETZE (INDIA) LTD. V. CIT 284 ITR 323 (SC) JUD GMENT DATED 24-3-2006 THE ASSESSEE FILED ITS RETURN OF IN COME ON 30-11- I.T.A.NO.118/IND/2013 KUMC, MHOW V. ITO,5(3),INDORE A.Y. 2008-09 PAGE 5 OF 9 1195 FOR A.Y. 1 995-96. DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDIN GS IT SOUGHT TO CLAIM A DEDUCTION BY WAY OF A LETTER DATED 12- 1-1988. THE DEDUCTION AS DISALLOWED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE GROUND THAT THERE WAS NO PROVISION UNDER THE INCOME-TAX AC T TO MAKE AMENDMENT IN THE RETURN OF INCOME OTHERWISE THAN BY REVISING THE RETURN. IN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A), THE ASSESSEES' CLAIM W AS ALLOWED. HOWEVER THE ITAT ALLOWED DEPARTMENTS' APPEAL AGAINS T THE ORDER BY CIT(A). THE ASSESSEE IN APPEAL BEFORE THE SUPREM E COURT RELIED UPON THE APEX COURT' DECISION IN NATIONAL THERMAL P OWER CO. LTD. V. CIT (1998) 229 ITR 383 (SC) TO CONTEND THAT IT W AS OPEN TO ASSESSEE TO RAISE THE POINTS OF LAW EVEN BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. THE APEX COURT HELD THAT THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION NOT MADE IN THE RETURN CANNOT BE ENTERTAINED BY THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER OTHERWISE THAN BY FILING A REVISED RETURN. THE COURT ALSO HEL D THAT THE DECISION DOES NOT IMPINGE UPON THE POWERS OF THE TRIBUNAL UN DER SECTION 254 OF THE ACT. THE JUDGMENT IN GOETZE'S CASE HAS OPENED THE FLOOD GATE TO LITIGATION. 8] DISTINCTION BETWEEN A FRESH CLAIM AND REVISED CLAIM A DISTINCTION NEEDS TO BE MADE BETWEEN A FRESH CLAIM MADE DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING THROUGH A LETTER AND REVI SION OF RETURN. IN A CASE WHERE NO CLAIM WAS MADE IN THE RETURN, TH E JUDGMENT IN GOETZE'S' CASE IS GENERALLY RELIED UPON BY THE ASSE SSING OFFICER, IGNORING THE CIRCULAR NO. 14(XL-35) CITED ABOVE. HO WEVER, WHERE NECESSARY EVIDENCE IN RESPECT OF A CLAIM IS ALREADY ON RECORD BUT THE QUANTUM OF DEDUCTION NEEDS REVISION DUE TO VARI OUS FACTORS, THE ASSESSEES' CLAIM THROUGH A LETTER OUGHT TO BE ACCEP TED. IN SUCH CASES THERE IS ALREADY A CLAIM BY THE ASSESSEE AND THERE BEING NO FRESH CLAIM THE JUDGMENT IN GOETZE'S CASE, WITH DUE RESPECT SHALL NOT BE APPLICABLE. THE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN CIT V. DHAMPUR SUGAR LT D. 90ITR 236 (ALL.) MADE A DISTINCTION BETWEEN REVISED RETURN AND A CORRECTION OF RETURN. IT HELD THAT: 'THERE IS DISTINCTION BETWEEN A REVISED RETURN AND A CORRECTION OF RETURN. IF THE ASSESSEE FILES SOME AP PLICATION FOR CORRECTING A RETURN ALREADY FILED OR MAKING AME NDS THEREIN, IT WOULD NOT MEAN THAT HE HAS FILED A REVI SED RETURN. I.T.A.NO.118/IND/2013 KUMC, MHOW V. ITO,5(3),INDORE A.Y. 2008-09 PAGE 6 OF 9 IT WILL RETAIN THE CHARACTER OF AN ORIGINAL RETURN. BUT ONCE THE REVISED RETURN IS FILED, THE ORIGINAL RETURN MU ST BE TAKEN TO HAVE BEEN WITHDRAWN AND TO HAVE BEEN SUBSTITUTED BY A FRESH RETURN FOR THE PURPOSE OF ASSESSMENT.' 9] APPELLATE AUTHORITIES JURISDICTION TO ENTERTAIN FRESH CLAIM - JUDGMENTS SUBSEQUENT TO GOETZE JUDGMENT GAVE A TOOL IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DENY THE BENE FIT OF DEDUCTION NOT CLAIMED IN THE RETURN, BUT MADE BY WA Y OF LETTER/REVISED COMPUTATION, EVEN THOUGH NECESSARY INFORMATION WAS AVAILABLE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFI CER IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING. AGGRIEVED BY THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICERS, THE ASSESSEES HAVE AGITATED THE ISSUES BEFORE APPELLATE AUTHORITIES. SOME OF THE JUDGMENTS ARE CITED HEREINAFTER. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX V. JAI PARBOLIC SPRINGS LTD. (2008) 306ITR 42 (DEL.) THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED 115TH OF EXPENDITURE ON ACCOUN T OF CUSTOMER INTRODUCTION CHARGES IN THE RETURN OF INCOME AND TR EATED THE BALANCE AS DEFERRED REVENUE EXPENDITURE. THE ASSESS ING OFFICER ALLOWED THE CLAIM. IN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A), BY WAY OF ADDITIONAL GROUND OF APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED T HE ENTIRE EXPENDITURE AS ALLOWABLE DEDUCTION. THE CIT(A) ALLO WED THE CLAIM. THE ITAT, IN APPEAL BY THE DEPARTMENT, RESTORED THE ISSUE TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO CONSIDER AND DECIDE THE ISSUE AFTER EXAMINING THE DETAILS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, IN THE FRESH OR DER DID NOT ALLOW THE CLAIM ON THE GROUND THAT IT WAS NOT MADE IN THE RETURN. BOTH THE CIT(A) AND THE ITAT HELD THAT THE CLAIM WAS ALLOWAB LE AND ALLOWED THE SAME. THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT HELD THAT: '17. IN GOETZE (INDIA) LIMITED V. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 284 ITR 323 (SC) WHEREIN DEDUCTION CLAIMED BY WAY OF A LETTER B EFORE ASSESSING OFFICER, WAS DISALLOWED ON THE GROUND THA T THERE WAS NO PROVISION UNDER THE ACT TO MAKE AMENDMENT IN THE RE TURN WITHOUT FILING A REVISED RETURN. APPEAL TO THE SUPREME COUR T, AS THE DECISION WAS UPHELD BY THE TRIBUNAL AND THE HIGH CO URT, WAS DISMISSED MAKING CLEAR THAT THE DECISION WAS LIMITE D TO THE POWER OF ASSESSING AUTHORITY TO ENTERTAIN CLAIM FOR DEDUC TION OTHERWISE THAN BY REVISED RETURN, AND DID NOT IMPINGE ON THE POWER OF TRIBUNAL. ' I.T.A.NO.118/IND/2013 KUMC, MHOW V. ITO,5(3),INDORE A.Y. 2008-09 PAGE 7 OF 9 CIT V. RAMCO INTERNATIONAL 221 CTR 491 (P&H) THE ASSESSEE DID NOT MAKE A CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION U/S . 80IB IN THE RETURN. THE ASSESSEE HOWEVER FILED FORM 80CCB AND O THER RELEVANT DOCUMENTS DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. T HE CLAIM WAS DISALLOWED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE CIT(A) ALLOWED THE CLAIM. THE ITAT UPHELD THE ORDER BY CIT(A). THE HIG H COURT UPHELD THE IT AT ORDER. CIT V. BHARAT ALUMINIUM LTD. 303 ITR 256 (DEL.) THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED A REVISED COMPUTATION OF INC OME WHICH WAS NOT SIGNED BY THE PERSON WHO HAD SIGNED THE ORIGINA L RETURN OF INCOME. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT ACCEPT THE RE VISED COMPUTATION ON THE GROUND THAT IT WAS NOT SIGNED IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 140(C) OF THE ACT. THE HON'BLE COURT R ELYING ON THE DECISION IN DHAMPUR SUGAR LTD. 90 ITR 236 (ALL.), WHEREIN IT DISTINGUISHED BETWEEN THE ORIGINAL RETURN AND REVIS ED RETURN, HELD THAT ORIGINAL RETURN WAS REQUIRED TO BE SIGNED AS P ER SECTION 140(C), WHEREAS THE REVISED COMPUTATION COULD BE SI GNED BY THE AUTHORISED PERSON. CIT V. NATRAJ STATIONERY PRODUCTS (P) LTD., (2009) 312 ITR 222. THE ASSESSEE HAD ASKED FOR RE-COMPUTATION OF DEDUCT ION UNDER SECTION 80-IE. RELYING ON GOETZE (INDIA) LTD. (SUPR A) THE REVENUE REJECTED THE CLAIM. AS THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT MADE AN Y NEW CLAIM THE COURT HELD THAT THE SAID DECISION MAY NOT BE SQUARE LY APPLICABLE. IT HELD THAT THE COURTS HAVE TAKEN A PRAGMATIC VIEW AN D NOT THE TECHNICAL VIEW AS WHAT IS REQUIRED TO BE DETERMINED IS THE TAXABLE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAW. IN THIS SENSE, ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ARE NOT ADVERSARIAL IN NATUR E. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX V. ROSE SERVICES APARTMENT INDIA P. LTD., [2010]326 ITR 100 (DELHI) RELYING UPON THE DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT IN N ATIONAL THERMAL POWER CO. LTD. 229 ITR 383 (SC), THE COURT REJECTED THE PLEA OF THE REVENUE THAT THE TRIBUNAL COULD NOT HAV E ENTERTAINED THE PLEA, HOLDING THAT THE TRIBUNAL WAS EMPOWERED T O DEAL WITH THE ISSUE AND WAS ENTITLED TO DETERMINE THE CLAIM OF LO SS, IF AT ALL, UNDER ONE SECTION/PROVISION OR THE OTHER. IT IS WELL SETTLED THAT AN ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO RAISE NOT MERELY ADDITIONAL LEGAL SUBMISSIONS BEFORE THE APPELLATE A UTHORITIES, BUT IS ALSO ENTITLED TO RAISE ADDITIONAL CLAIMS BEFORE THE M. THE APPELLATE AUTHORITIES HAVE THE DISCRETION WHETHER OR NOT TO P ERMIT SUCH I.T.A.NO.118/IND/2013 KUMC, MHOW V. ITO,5(3),INDORE A.Y. 2008-09 PAGE 8 OF 9 ADDITIONAL CLAIMS TO BE RAISED. IT CANNOT, HOWEVER, BE SAID THAT THEY HAVE NO JURISDICTION TO CONSIDER THE SAME. THAT THE Y MAY CHOOSE NOT TO EXERCISE THEIR JURISDICTION IN A GIVEN CASE IS ANOTHER MATTER. THE EXERCISE OF DISCRETION IS ENTIRELY DIFFERENT FR OM THE EXISTENCE OF JURISDICTION. GOETZE WAS CONFINED TO A CASE WHERE T HE CLAIM WAS MADE ONLY BEFORE THE AO AND NOT BEFORE THE APPELLAT E AUTHORITIES. THE COURT DID NOT LAY DOWN THAT A CLAIM NOT MADE BE FORE THE AO CANNOT BE MADE BEFORE THE APPELLATE AUTHORITIES. TH E JURISDICTION OF THE APPELLATE AUTHORITIES TO ENTERTAIN SUCH A CL AIM HAS NOT BEEN NEGATED BY THE SUPREME COURT IN THIS JUDGMENT. 10. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE JUDGMENTS/ORDERS, THE LD.CIT(A) A ND HON'BLE TRIBUNAL HAVE POWER TO ALLOW DEDUCTION FOR EXPENDITURE TO ASSESSEE TO WHICH IT WAS OTHERWISE E NTITLED EVEN THOUGH NO CLAIM WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN TH E RETURN. THE ASSESSEE IF ENTITLED TO A PARTICULAR CL AIM, WHICH IT MISSED IN THE RETURN, MAY CLAIM DURING APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. THE ASSESSEE SHOULD HOWEVER ENSURE THA T ALL NECESSARY EVIDENCE IS SUBMITTED DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND IS AVAILABLE IN RECORD. THUS IT IS PRAYED THAT NECESSARY DIRECTION BE ISSUE D TO THE LD. A.O. / LD. CIT(A) TO CONSIDER FIXED ASSETS OF R S. 50,00,000 PURCHASED BY TAKING INTEREST FREE LOAN FR OM BOARD AS APPLICATION OF FUND BY THE KRISHI UPAJ MAN DI SAMITI FOR ITS OBJECT. 4. LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE PRAY ED THAT THE MATTER MAY BE REMANDED TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT(A) TO CONSIDER THE FIXED ASSETS OF RS. 50 LAKHS. 5. LD. SENIOR DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE DID NOT RAIS E ANY OBJECTION IF THE MATTER IS REMANDED AND RESTORE D TO THE FILE OF LD. CIT(A). I.T.A.NO.118/IND/2013 KUMC, MHOW V. ITO,5(3),INDORE A.Y. 2008-09 PAGE 9 OF 9 6. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS AND MATERIALS AVAILAB LE ON RECORD. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE WRITTEN SUBMISSI ONS AND ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. WE, THEREFORE, REST ORE THIS MATTER TO THE FILE OF LD. CIT(A) TO CONSIDER THE FI XED ASSETS OF RS. 50,00,000/- PURCHASED BY TAKING INTEREST FREE L OAN FROM BOARD AS APPLICATION OF FUND BY THE KRISHI UPAJ MA NDI SAMITI FOR ITS OBJECT. THE LD. CIT(A) SHALL DECIDE THE CAS E IN VIEW OF KEEPING THE CASE LAWS CITED BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. CIT(A) SHALL AFFORD AN OPPORTUNIT Y OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWE D FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. THE ORDER HAS BEEN PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON THE 5 TH OCTOBER, 2016. SD/- (..) (D.T.GARASIA) JUDICIAL MEMBER SD/- (..) (O.P.MEENA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER * / DATED : 5 TH OCTOBER, 2016.CPU*