M/s Krishi Upal Mandi Samiti, Betul V. The DCIT, Bhopal

ITA 224/IND/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2009] 115 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1412 (ITAT-INDORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-11-2009
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 24-11-2009
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 07-05-2009
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: V K KARAN
• Keywords: Depreciation; Capital expenditure
• Section: 11

Judgement Text

PAGE 1 OF 5 I.T.A.NOS. 224 & 225/IND/2009 KUMS BADORA, DISTRICT BETUL IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH : INDORE BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI V.K. GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PAN NO. : AAHFK0091N I.T.A.NO.224 & 225/IND/2009 A.YS. : 2004-05 & 2005-06 KRISHI UPAJ MANDI SAMITI, DY. CIT, BADORA, VS 2(1), DISTRICT BETUL BHOPAL. APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : NONE (WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS) RESPONDENT BY : SHRI V.K.KARAN, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING : 24/11/2009 O R D E R PER V.K. GUPTA, A.M. BOTH THESE APPEALS BELONG TO SAME ASSESSEE AND INVO LVE COMMON ISSUES, HENCE, THESE WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BE ING DISPOSED OF THROUGH THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CON VENIENCE. 2. NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS HAVE BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 9.11 .2009, WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE HAS NARRATED VARIOUS FACTS AND HAS REQUEST ED THE TRIBUNAL TO DECIDE THE ISSUES AFTER CONSIDERING THE SAME. ACCOR DINGLY, WE PROCEED TO PAGE 2 OF 5 I.T.A.NOS. 224 & 225/IND/2009 KUMS BADORA, DISTRICT BETUL DECIDE THESE APPEALS AFTER HEARING THE LD. DEPARTME NTAL REPRESENTATIVE AND CONSIDERING THESE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE ASSES SEE. 3. THE COMMON GROUNDS HAVE BEEN TAKEN IN BOTH THE ABOV E APPEALS. HOWEVER, WE ARE REPRODUCING THE GROUNDS OF I.T.A.NO. 224/IND/2009 FOR THE SAKE OF BREVITY:- 1. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED AND WAS NOT JUSTIFIED BY NOT ALLOW ING STATUTORY PAYMENTS OF SURAKSHIT/STHAI NIDHI AS EXPE NDITURE, HENCE, KINDLY ALLOW THE SAME. 2. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED AND WAS NOT JUSTIFIED BY TREATING INTEREST ACCRUED ON SURAKSHIT/STHAI NIDHI REFERRED IN POINT NO.1 ABOVE AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE, HENCE, KINDLY DELE TE THE SAME. 3. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED AND WAS NOT JUSTIFIED BY NOT ALLOW ING STATUTORY PAYMENTS OF ARAKSHIT NIDHI AS EXPENDITURE , HENCE, KINDLY ALLOW THE SAME. 4. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED AND WAS NOT JUSTIFIED BY TREATING INTEREST PAGE 3 OF 5 I.T.A.NOS. 224 & 225/IND/2009 KUMS BADORA, DISTRICT BETUL ACCRUED ON ARAKSHIT NIDHI REFERRED IN POINT NO.3 AB OVE AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE, HENCE, KINDLY DELETE THE SA ME. 5. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED AND WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN HOLDING T HAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ENTITLED TO CLAIM DEPRECIATION OF F IXED ASSETS AS ITS TAXABLE INCOME IS DETERMINED AS PER THE PROV ISION OF SECTION 11 TO 13 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961, HENCE , KINDLY ALLOW THE SAME. 6. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED AND WAS NOT JUSTIFIED BY NOT ALLOW ING CAPITAL EXPENDITURE OF FIXED ASSETS AS APPLICATION OF INCOME UNDER SECTION 11 OF INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961, HENCE, KI NDLY ALLOW THE SAME. 7. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED AND WAS NOT JUSTIFIED BY NOT DIREC TING TO DETERMINE TAXABLE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 11 TO 13 OF THE INCOME-TAX AC T, 1961, HENCE, KINDLY DO THE NEEDFUL. 4. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, AT THE VERY OU T-SET, SUBMITTED THAT GROUND NOS. 1 TO 4 OF I.T.A.NO. 224/ IND/2009 WERE COVERED BY THE DECISION OF TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF KRISHI UPAJ MANDI SAMITI, PAGE 4 OF 5 I.T.A.NOS. 224 & 225/IND/2009 KUMS BADORA, DISTRICT BETUL BURHANPUR, AS REPORTED IN 12 ITJ 12. THEREFORE, HE CONTENDED THAT ISSUES RAISED IN GROUND NOS. 5 & 6 WERE ALSO COVERED BY TH E ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASES OF KRISHI UPAJ MANDI SAMITI A S REPORTED IN 12 ITJ 1 AND 13 ITJ 103. AS REGARDS THE ISSUE RAISED IN GROU ND NOS. 7, THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE CONTENDED THAT THIS ISS UE WAS ALSO COVERED BY THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF KRI SHI UPAJ MANDI SAMITI AS REPORTED IN 12 ITJ 12. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPR ESENTATIVE FURTHER CONTENDED THAT THIS ISSUE RAISED IN I.T.A.NO. 225/I ND/2009 WERE IDENTICAL TO THE ISSUE RAISED IN THESE GROUNDS, HENCE, COVERE D BY THE SAID DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL. 5. SINCE NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE, HEN CE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, WE RESTORE ALL THESE ISSUES TO THE FILE OF A.O. TO DECIDE THE SAME AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE AFORESAID DE CISION OF THE TRIBUNAL AND AFTER ALLOWING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE, WHO SHALL BE AT LIBERTY TO FILE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS BEF ORE THE A.O., WHICH HAVE ALSO BEEN FILED BEFORE US AND TO ADDUCE ANY FURTHER EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF ITS CLAIM. THUS, ALL THE GROUNDS RAISED IN THESE AP PEALS STAND ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 6. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THESE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE S TAND ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. PAGE 5 OF 5 I.T.A.NOS. 224 & 225/IND/2009 KUMS BADORA, DISTRICT BETUL THIS ORDER HAS BEEN PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 27 TH NOVEMBER, 2009. SD/- SD/- (JOGINDER SINGH) (V. K. GUPTA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 27 TH NOVEMBER, 2009. CPU* 2425D26