ITO, BIKANER V. M/s. Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, SRIKARANPUR

ITA 17/JODH/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5290 (ITAT-JODHPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 2 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-03-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 08-01-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S L MOURYA
• Section: 12A

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR BEFORE SHRI N.S. SAINI , HONBLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, HONBLE JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 1 7 / JODH /201 5 (ASST. YEAR : 200 8 - 0 9 ) ITO, (EXEMPTIONS ), BIKANER . VS. M/S. KRISHI UPAJ MANDI SAMITI , DHAN MANDI, SRIKARANPUR. PAN NO. AABTK 0299 A (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : NONE . DEPARTMENT BY : S HRI S.L. MOURYA - DR DATE OF HEARING : 1 1 / 0 3 /201 6 . DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 1 1 / 03 /201 6 . O R D E R PER N.S. SAINI , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) , BIKANER , DATED 15 / 1 0/201 4 . 2. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: - 'ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LD. CIT(A), BIKANER HAS ERRED IN: - I. HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEES CASE IS COVERED U/S 11(1 )(A) AS SUCH IT WAS NOT REQUIRED TO FILE FORM NO. 10 UNDER RULE 17 OF THE IT RULES 1962 WHEREAS AS THE ACCUMULATION WAS MORE THAN 15% OF ITS INCOME AS SUCH THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 11(2) WERE APPLICABLE IN THE ASSESSEES CASE. II. ALLOWING RELIEF OF RS. 56,35,757/ - HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEES CASE WAS COVERED U/S 11(1 )(A) OF THE IT ACT, 1961 IGNORING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT COMPLIED WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 11(5) R.W. SEC. 13(1 )(D) OF THE IT ACT, 1961 WITH REGARD TO MODES OF INVESTMENT OF SURPLUS FUNDS. THE APPELLANT RESERVES ITS RIGHT TO ADD, AMEND OR ALTER THE GROUNDS OF APPEA L ON OR BEFORE THE DATE THE APPEAL IS FINALLY HEARD FOR DISPOSAL 2 ITA NO. 17 / JODH /201 5 3 . BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED EXEMPTION OF INCOME ACCUMULATED AND SET APART RS. 25,75,271/ - AND RS. 30,60,486/ - EXCESS EXPENDITURE OVER INCOME OF EARLIER YEARS TO BE SET OFF AGAINST CURRENT YEAR SURPLUS . THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED FORM NO. 10 , THEREFORE, CASE OF CIT VS. NAGPUR HOTEL OWNERS ASSOCIATION (247 ITR 201) IS RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSEE, SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED FORM NO.10 UNDER RULE 17 OF THE IT RULES, 1962 . THEREFORE, EXEMPTION CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DENIED AND ADDITION OF RS. 56,35,757/ - MADE TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 4 . ON APPEAL, COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE BY OBSERVING AS UNDER: - I HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND THE SUBMISSION MADE. THE APPELLANT KUMS IS REGISTERED U/S 12A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 WITH COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BIKANER. THE APPE LLANT HAS CLAIMED EXEMPTION U/S 1 1 (1)(A) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. THIS EXEMPTION CAN BE AVAILED WITHOUT ANY REQUIREMENT AS TO INTIMATION TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER OR APPLICATION OF ACCUMULATED INCOME WITHIN THE SPECIFIED PER IOD. EXEMPTION U/S 11(1) AND 11(2) ARE COMPLEMENTARY. A TRUST CAN CLAIM EXEMPTION IN RESPECT OF 15 % OF ITS INCOME UNDER SECTION 11(1 )(A) BY ACCUMULATING IT FOR APPLICATION TO CHARITABLE OR RELIGIOUS PURPOSES SUCH ACCUMULATION DOES NOT REQUIRE ANY NOTICE TO BE GIVEN TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER. BESIDES A TRUST MAY CLAIM EXEMPTION UPTO 85 % OF ITS INCOME U/S 11(2) BY COMPLYING THE CONDITIONS LAID DOWN THEREIN. THE APPELLANT HAS CLAIMED EXEMPTION U/S 11 (L)(A) WHEREAS THE AO HAS DISALLOWED EXEMPTION ON THE BASIS OF SECTION 11(2) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. IT IS FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE HON'BLE ITAT HAS ALLOWED THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE CASES OF M/S KRISHI UPAJ MANDI SAMITI (GRAIN), SRIGANGANAGAR AND M/S KRISHI UPAJ MANDI SAMITI, GAJSINGH PUR VIDE ITA NO. 124/JODH/2014 DATED 07.08.2014 AND ITA NO. 125/JODH/2014 DATED 07.08.2014. HENCE, CONSIDERING THE ENTIRE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE I AM OF THE VIEW THAT THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO IS HEREBY DELETED. THE APPELLANT SUCCEEDS ON THI S GROUND. 5. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE RELIE D ON THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE IN SPITE OF NOTICE OF HEARING WAS SENT TO THE ASSESSEE. 6 . WE FIND THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE AND DELETED THE ADDITION OF 3 ITA NO. 17 / JODH /201 5 RS. 56,35,757/ - BY FOLLOWING THE ORDERS OF THIS BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF M/S. KRISHI UPAJ MANDI SAMITI (GRAIN) , SRIGANGANAGAR AND M/S. KRISHI UPAJ MANDI SAMITI, GAJSINGHPUR IN ITA NOS. 124 & 125/JODH/2014 DATED 07/08/2014 . DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE COULD NOT BRING ANY GOOD REASON AS TO WHY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DELETING T HE ADDITION BY FOLLOWING THE ORDERS OF THE TRIBUNAL. IN ABSENCE OF THE SAME, WE DO NOT FIND ANY GOOD AND JUSTIFIABLE REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) , WHICH IS CONFIRMED AND THE GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 7. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT AT THE CLOSE OF THE HEARING ON FRIDAY , THE 1 1 TH DAY OF MARCH , 201 6 AT JODHPUR . S D / - S D / - (GEORGE MATHAN) (N.S.SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER D ATED : 1 1 TH MARCH , 201 6 . VR/ - COPY TO: 1. THE ASSESS E E. 2. THE REVENUE. 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE D.R . 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER