The Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Valsad V. The CIT, Valsad

ITA 2432/AHD/2011

• Counselvise Citation: 243220514 RSA 2011
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-01-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 20-12-2011
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 26-09-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: JASBIR S CHOUHAN
• Assessee Lawyers: MITISH S MODI
• Section: 12A; 12AA; 12

Judgement Text

, , , , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT AHMEDABAD, A BENCH . .. . . .. . , !'# !'# !'# !'#, , , , $ $ $ $ . .. .% %% % . .. .&'( &'( &'( &'(, , , , %) * %) * %) * %) * % # % # % # % # BEFORE S/SHRI G.C. GUPTA, VICE-PRESIDENT AND A. K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) ITA NO.2432/AHD/2011 AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKET COMMITTEE DASHERI TEKRI, BECHAR ROAD VALSAD DIST : VALSAD 396 001. PAN : AACFT 7207 J /VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SURYAPRAKASH CHAMBER VALSAD. ( (( (,- ,- ,- ,- / APPELLANT) ( (( (./,- ./,- ./,- ./,- / RESPONDENT) 01 2 3 %/ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI MITISH S. MODI * 2 3 %/ REVENUE BY : SHRI JASBIR S. CHOUHAN 5 2 16)/ DATE OF HEARING : 20 TH DECEMBER, 2011 7&8 2 16)/ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 05-01-2012 %9 / O R D E R PER G.C. GUPTA, VICE-PRESIDENT: THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF I NCOME-TAX DATED 6.09.2011 REFUSING REGISTRATION UNDER SECTION 12A O F THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 2. THE GROUNDS RAISED IN THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE READ AS UNDER: 1. THE LD.CIT, VALSADS ORDER IS CONTRADICTORY TO L AW AND FACTS OF THE CASE, HENCE LIABLE TO THE QUASHED. 2. THE LD.CIT HAS ERRED IN PASSING ORDER U/S.12AA(1 )(B)(II) R.W.S. 254 OF THE ACT, WITHOUT CONSIDERING ON MERIT S THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES/EXPLANATIONS FURNISHED BEFORE HIM TO SATISFY HIMSELF ABOUT THE GENUINENESS OF THE ACTIVI TIES CARRIED OUT BY THE APPLICANT TRUST AND HENCE HIS ACTION IN REFU SING TO REGISTER APPELLANT COMMITTEE IS ARBITRARY, BAD IN LAW AND NO T JUSTIFIED. ITA NO.2432/AHD/2011 -2- 3. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED T HAT THIS IS THE SECOND ROUND OF LITIGATION BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AND IN THE FIRST ROUND, THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ORDER DATED 5-6-2009 IN ITA NO.1974/A HD/2006 HAS RESTORED THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE CIT. HE SUBM ITTED THAT THE CLAIM OF REGISTRATION UNDER SECTION 12A WAS REJECTED BY THE CIT ON WRONG ASSUMPTION OF FACTS AND THE LAW APPLICABLE. HE SUB MITTED THAT THE CIT HAS RECORDED THAT THE APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE F OR REGISTRATION UNDER SECTION 12A WAS LATE BY 47 YEARS AND 8 MONTHS WHICH IS FACTUALLY WRONG WHEN THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED REGISTRATION UNDER SECTIO N 12A W.E.F. 1-4-2003 AND THE APPLICATION WAS FILED ON 14.12.2005 AND THE DELAY IS OF ONLY FEW MONTHS. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS UNDER BONA FIDE BELIEF THAT IT WAS COVERED UNDER THE WORDS LOCAL AUTHORITY USED IN SECTION 10(20) OF THE ACT AND THEREFORE NOT REQUIRED TO GET REGISTRAT ION UNDER SECTION 12A OF THE ACT. HE SUBMITTED ENGLISH VERSION OF THE OB JECTS OF THE ASSESSEE AND HE SUBMITTED THAT THEY ARE OF PUBLIC UTILITY AN D CHARITABLE IN NATURE. THE LEARNED DR OPPOSED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARN ED AR. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOTIFIED ON 30-4-19 58 AND THE APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION UNDER SECTION 12A WAS FILED AFTER 47 YEARS AND 8 MONTHS. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE OBJECTS OF THE ASSESSEE DO NO T SEEM TO BE CHARITABLE IN NATURE. HE RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE CIT. 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PER USED THE ORDER OF THE CIT PASSED UNDER SECTION 12AA OF THE ACT AND AL SO TRANSLATION OF THE OBJECTS OF THE ASSESSEE. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOTIFIED ON 30-4- 1958 BUT HAS CLAIMED REGISTRATION UNDER SECTION 12A OF THE ACT W.E.F. 01- 4-2003. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED APPLICATION FOR REG ISTRATION UNDER SECTION 12A OF THE ACT ON 19-12-2005. THE ASSESSEE HAS SUB MITTED THAT ITS INCOME WAS EXEMPT UNDER SECTION 10(20) OF THE ACT A ND WAS COVERED ITA NO.2432/AHD/2011 -3- UNDER THE WORDS LOCAL AUTHORITY PRIOR TO 1-4-2003 AND THEREFORE THERE WAS NO NEED OF GETTING REGISTRATION UNDER SECTION 1 2A OF THE ACT PRIOR TO 1-4-2003. IN THESE FACTS, SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS S OUGHT REGISTRATION UNDER SECTION 12A W.E.F. 1-4-2003, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE FILED ON 19-12-2005 WAS LATE BY 47 YEARS A ND 8 MONTHS. THE DELAY IN FILING OF THE APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 12 A OF THE ACT FOR THE PERIOD 1-4-2003 ONWARDS IS OF FEW MONTHS AND FOR TH AT ALSO THE ASSESSEE HAS EXPLAINED THAT IT WAS UNDER BONA FIDE BELIEF THAT IT CONTINUES TO ENJOY THE EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 10(20) OF THE ACT AND I S COVERED WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE WORDS LOCAL AUTHORITY USED IN THAT SECTION. IN THESE FACTS, WE HOLD THAT THERE WAS SUFFICIENT CAUSE WITH THE ASSESSEE FOR THE DELAY IN FILING OF THE APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 12 A OF THE ACT FOR THE PERIOD 01-4-2003 ONWARDS, WHICH IS ACCORDINGLY COND ONED. 5. REGARDING THE ISSUE OF OBJECTS OF THE ASSESSEE, WE FIND THAT NONE OF THE OBJECTS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE HIT BY ANY PROVISIO NS OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. THE OBJECTS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE OF GENERAL PU BLIC UTILITY AND WAS ESTABLISHED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF GUJARAT UNDER AN E NACTMENT FOR REGULATING MARKETING OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE IN SPE CIFIED AREA. THE OBJECTS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE OF GENERAL PUBLIC UTILI TY AND NOT IN VIOLATION OF ANY STATUTORY PROVISIONS OF THE ACT. WE HOLD THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO THE REGISTRATION UNDER SECTION 12A OF THE ACT, W HICH IS ACCORDINGLY GRANTED W.E.F. 1-4-2003 AND THE GROUNDS OF THE ASSE SSEE ARE ALLOWED. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONE D HEREINABOVE. SD/- SD/- ( . .. .% %% % . .. .&'( &'( &'( &'( /A.K. GARODIA) %) * /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ( . .. . . .. . /G.C. GUPTA) !'# !'# !'# !'# /VICE-PRESIDENT