The ITO, Ward-1, Anakapalle V. M/s Agricultural Market Committee, Anakapalle

ITA 312/VIZ/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 135 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2920 (ITAT-VISAKHAPATNAM)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-08-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 28-05-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SUBRATA SARKAR
• Assessee Lawyers: N O N E
• Section: 10

Judgement Text

PAGE 1 OF 3 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM B EFORE: SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.R.BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.312/VIZAG/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 ITO WARD-1, VS. AGRICULTURAL MARKET OMMITTEE, GANDHINAGARAM ANAKAPALLI (APPELLANT) (PAN NO.AAALA0886G) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI SUBRATA SARKAR, CIT-DR RESPONDENTS BY: N O N E ORDER PER SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THE APPEALS FILED AT THE INSTANCE OF THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD CIT (A), VISAKHAPATNAM DATED 30/03 /2010 PASSED AGAINST THE QUANTUM ASSESSMENTS RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 200 7-08. 2. THE SOLITARY ISSUE URGED IN THIS APPEAL IS WHETH ER THE LD CIT (A) IS RIGHT IN HOLDING THAT THE SECTION 10(26AAB) IS RETROACTIVE I N OPERATION AND THEREBY THE INCOME OF THESE ASSESSEES ARE EXEMPT U/S 10(26AAB) OF THE ACT. 3. WE HAVE HEARD THE PARTIES AND CAREFULLY PERUSED THE RECORD. FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE WE EXTRACT THE OPERATIVE PART OF THE ORDER OF THE LD CIT (A). 4. I HAVE CAREFULLY EXAMINED THE CONTENTION RAISED BY THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE APPELLANT. THE ONL Y ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION AS URGED BY THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTA TIVE OF THE APPELLANT IS WHETHER THE INSERTION OF SECTION 10(26 AAB) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 WAS A DECLARATIVE ACT TO REMOVE DOUBTS EXISTING WITH REGARD TO THE EFFECT OF PRE-EXISTING STATUE AND PAGE 2 OF 3 HENCE RETROSPECTIVE IN OPERATION. IN THE DECISION R ELIED UPON BY THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE APPELLANT OF T HE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, IT HA S BEEN CONCLUDED AT PARA (14) OF THE ORDER AS UNDER:- SINCE WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE PROVISIONS OF S ECTION 10(26AAB) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ARE INTENDED TO BE RETROACTIVE IN OPERATION, HAVING BEEN INSERTED IN T HE STATUTE BOOK WITH A VIEW TO CLARIFY THE POSITION OF AMCS EV EN UNDER THE PRE-EXISTING STATUTE AND THE FINANCE MINISTER HAVIN G SPECIFICALLY MENTIONED, WHILE REPLYING TO THE DEBATE IN THE LOK SABHA, THAT THERE IS NO INTENTION TO TAX AMCS, THE ENTIRE FEE/I NCOME COLLECTED/RECEIVED HAS TO BE CONSIDERED AS EXEMPT F ROM THE LEVY OF TAX IN WHICH EVEN THE DECISION ON THE ANCILLARY ISSUE IS OF ACADEMIC IMPORTANCE AND THUS NEED NOT BE GONE INTO . RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL TRIBUNAL, IT IS HELD THAT THE INSERTION OF SUB-CLAU SE (26AAB) TO SECTION 10 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 IS ESSENTIAL LY INTENDED TO DECLARE THE INTENTION OF THE LEGISLATURE OF NOT TAX ING THE INCOME OF AMCS CONSTITUTED UNDER ANY LAW FOR THE TIME BEIN G IN FORCE FOR THE PURPOSES OF REGULATING THE MARKETING OF AGRICUL TURAL PRODUCE AND HENCE IT HAS TO BE TREATED AS RETROACTIVE IN OP ERATION AND APPLICABLE EVEN FOR THE PRIOR YEARS. 4. WE NOTICE THAT THE LD CIT(A) HAS FOLLOWED THE DECISION RENDERED BY THIS BENCH ON THE INSTANT ISSUE. IN A BATCH OF APPEALS, I.E., IN I.T.A.NO.90/VIZAG/2007 AND BATCH, I.T.A.T., VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VIDE ORDER DT.28.11.2008, HELD THAT THE INCOME OF THE AGRICULTURAL MARKET COMMITTEES IS EXEMPT UNDER SECTION 10(26AAB) OF THE ACT. THE DECISION RENDERED IN THA T CASE IS EXTRACTED BELOW: HAVING REGARD TO THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE ARE OF THE FIRM VIEW THAT THE INSERTION OF SUB-CLAUSE (26AAB) TO SECTION 10 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT IS ESSENTIALLY INTENDED TO DECLARE THE INTENTION OF THE LEGISLATURE OF NOT TAXING THE INCO ME OF AMCS CONSTITUTED UNDER ANY LAW FOR THE TIME BEING IN FOR CE FOR THE PURPOSES OF REGULATING THE MARKETING OF AGRICULTURA L PRODUCE AND HENCE IT HAS TO BE TREATED AS RETROACTIVE IN OP ERATION AND APPLICABLE EVEN FOR THE PRIOR YEARS, WE ORDER ACCOR DINGLY. PAGE 3 OF 3 5. SINCE THE LD CIT (A) HAS FOLLOWED THE DECISI ON RENDERED BY THIS BENCH, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH HIS ORDER. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVEN UE IS DISMISSED. PRONOUNCED ACCORDINGLY IN THE OPEN COURT ON 3 RD AUGUST, 2010. SD/- SD/- (SUNIL KUMAR YADAV) (B.R.BASKARAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PVV/SPS VISAKHAPATNAM DATE: 3-8-2010 COPY TO 1. ITO, WARD-1, GANDHINAGARAM, ANAKAPALLE 2. THE AGRICULTURAL MARKET COMMITTEE,ANAKAPALLE 3. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS), VISAKHAPAT NAM 4. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, VISAKHAPATNAM 5. THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, I.T.A.T., VISA KHAPATNAM 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM