I.T.O., Jalaun V. M/s Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Jalaun

ITA 123/AGR/2010

• Counselvise Citation: 12320314 RSA 2010
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 3 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-08-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 08-08-2011
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 30-04-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A K SHARMA
• Section: 12AA; 11

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AGRA BENCHA, AGRA BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI K.G. BANSAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.122/AGR/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 INCOME TAX OFFICER, VS. M/S KRISHI UTPADAN MANDI SAMITI ORAI (JALAUN). NAVIN MANDI STHAL, JALAUN ROAD, JALAUN, DISTT. JALAUN. (PAN: AAALK 0580 B). ITA NO.123/AGR/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 INCOME TAX OFFICER, VS. M/S KRISHI UTPADAN MANDI SAMITI ORAI (JALAUN). NAVIN MANDI STHAL, KONCH, DISTT, JALAUN (PAN: AAALK 0583 C). (APPELLANTS) (RESPONDENTS) APPELLANTS BY: SHRI A.K. SHARMA, JR. D.R. RESPONDENTS BY: SHRI M.M. AGARWAL, CHARTERED ACCO UNTANT ORDER PER BENCH: THESE TWO APPEALS HAVE BEEN FILED BY THE REVENUE A GAINST TWO DIFFERENT ORDERS, BOTH DATED 22.02.2010, PASSED BY THE LD. CI T(A)-II, KANPUR FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. 2 2. BOTH THESE APPEALS CONTAIN THE ONLY SUBSTANTIVE GROUND THAT THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT ALLOWING DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 11(1) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (THE ACT HEREINAFTER) IN RESPECT OF THE AMOUNT RE MITTED TO THE BOARD. THE AMOUNT IN THE CASE OF ITA NO.122/AGR/2010 IS RS.26,05,280/ - AND RS.42,48,361/- IN THE CASE OF ITA NO.123/AGR/2010. SINCE COMMON GROUND I S INVOLVED, BOTH THE APPEALS WERE ARGUED IN A CONSOLIDATED MANNER BY THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE AND THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE . THEREFORE, WE THINK IT FIT TO PASS A CONSOLIDATED ORDER. 3. FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN REGISTERED UNDER SECTION 12AA OF THE ACT. IT WAS FORMED UNDER UTTAR PRADESH KRISHI UTPADAN ADHINIYAM, 1964. IT FUNCTIONS WITHIN THE AREA ALLOTTED TO IT AND THERE ARE OTHER SAMTIS LIKE THE ASSESSEE WHICH OPERATE IN OTHER PARTS OF THE STATE. THE UTTAR PRADESH RAJYA KRISHI UTPADAN MANDI PARISHAD ACTS AS A SUPERVISORY BODY F OR ALL SAMITIS. AS PER THE BYE-LAWS AND GOVERNMENT NOTIFICATIONS, IT TRANSFERR ED A SUM OF RS.26,05,280/- (IN RESPECT OF ITA NO.122/AGR/2010) AND RS.42,48,361/- (IN RESPECT OF ITA NO.123/AGR/2010) TO THE SUPERVISORY BODY IN THE YEA R ENDED ON 31.03.2007. 3.1 THE LD. CIT(A) HAS GIVEN A FINDING THAT THE TRI BUNAL HAS BEEN CONSISTENTLY HOLDING THAT THE AMOUNT PAID TO THE SUPERVISORY BOD Y CONSTITUTES APPLICATION OF 3 INCOME IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 11 (1)(A) OF THE ACT. IT IS FURTHER MENTIONED THAT THIS FINDING OR THE TRIBUNAL HAS BEE N CONFIRMED BY THE JUDGEMENT OF HONBLE HIGH COURT. THEREFORE, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE MENTIONED, AT THE OUT SET, THAT THE MATTER, BEING COVERED BY THE DECI SION OF JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT, MAY BE DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. IN THIS CONNECTION, HE PLACED ON RECORD THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT IN 26 APPEAL S OF DIFFERENT ASSESSEES, DEALING WITH SIMILAR MATTER AND RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR S 2003-04 TO 2005-07. THE FINDINGS OF THE COURT ARE CONTAINED IN PARAGRAPH NO .17 WHICH READS AS UNDER :- 17. IN OUR OPINION, THE AMOUNT SENT BY THE SAMITIS TO THE BOARD UNDER T HE ACT (NAMELY 50% OF THE MANDI SHULK AS WELL AS DEVELOPME NT CESS) THE BOARD IS UTILIZATION OF THE AMOUNT COLLECTED BY THE SAMITIS AND IT IS PROPER APPLICATION OF THE MONEY; THERE IS NO ILLEGALITY IN THE ORDER OF THE INCOME T AX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AND COMMISSIONER (APPEALS). 3.2 THE ONLY CASE MADE OUT BY THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE IS THE REVENUE WOULD LIKE TO KEEP THE MATTER ALIVE AND S.L .P. HAS BEEN FILED IN RESPECT OF THE MATTER OF REGISTRATION OF THE ASSESSEE UNDER SE CTION 12AA OF THE ACT. 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE US. SINCE THE MATTER STANDS COVERED BY THE DECISIO N OF JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT, IN 4 SO FAR AS MERITS ARE CONCERNED, AND THE ASSESSEE ST ANDS REGISTERED AS ON THE DATE OF PASSING THIS ORDER, WE ARE BOUND TO HOLD THAT THE A SSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO DEDUCTION OF THE AMOUNT PAID TO THE BOARD. ACCORDINGLY, WE DO N O FIND ANY REASON TO DIFFER WITH THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). IT MAY BE MENTIO NED HERE THAT THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE HAS NOT PLACED ANY EVID ENCE ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT THE DECISION AGAINST WHICH S.L.P. HAS BEEN FILED HA S BEEN STAYED IN ANY MANNER, WHATSOEVER. 5. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS ARE DISMISSED. (ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 09.08.201 1). SD/- SD/- (H.S. SIDHU ) (K.G. BANSAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PLACE: AGRA DATE: 9 TH AUGUST, 2011 PBN/* COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT BY ORDER 3. CIT CONCERNED 4. CIT (APPEALS) CONCERNED 5. DR, ITAT, AGRA BENCH, AGRA 6. GUARD FILE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AGRA TRUE COPY