M/s. Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Samriharchand V. The ACIT, Bhopal

ITA 458/IND/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 136 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2846 (ITAT-INDORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-05-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 18-09-2009
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: APARNA KARAN
• Keywords: Depreciation
• Section: 12AA

Judgement Text

PAGE 1 OF 6 -. I.T.A.NO. 458 & 445/IND/2009 KRISHI UPAJ MANDI SAMITI, SEMRIHARCHAND IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH : INDORE BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI V.K. GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PAN NO. : AAALK0476C I.T.A.NO. 445/IND/2009 A.Y. : 2006-07 ACIT, 1(1) KRISHI UPAJ MANDI SAMITI, BHOPAL VS SEMRIHARCHAND MP APPELLANT RESPONDENT PAN NO. : AAALK0476C I.T.A.NO. 458/IND/2009 A.Y. : 2006-07 KRISHI UPAJ MANDI SAMITI, ACIT, 1(1) SEMRIHARCHAND MP VS BHOPAL APPELLANT RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : SHRI ASHISH GOYAL, C. A. DEPARTMENT BY : SMT. APARNA KARAN, CIT DR DATE OF HEARING : 28.05.2010 O R D E R PER V.K. GUPTA, A.M. THESE CROSS APPEALS ARISE OUT OF THE ORDER OF THE L D. CIT(A)-I, BHOPAL, DATED 10.7.2009 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 200 6-07. PAGE 2 OF 6 -. I.T.A.NO. 458 & 445/IND/2009 KRISHI UPAJ MANDI SAMITI, SEMRIHARCHAND 2. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND HAVE ALSO PERUSE D THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. 3. FIRST, WE SHALL TAKE UP THE REVENUES APPEAL IN I.T .A.NO. 445/IND/2009. 4. GROUND NO.1 READS AS UNDER :- ON THE FACT AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE , THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 32,57,740 /- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF EXCESS CLAIM OF ROA D DEVELOPMENT FUND. 5. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AT THE VERY OU T-SET SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE WAS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF T HE ASSESSEE BY THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF THE KRISHI UPA J MANDI SAMITI, BURHANPUR, AS REPORTED IN 12 ITJ 12, AND REFERRED T O PARA 13 15 OF THE SAID ORDER AT PAGE 25. WE FIND THAT THE TRIBUNAL I N THE AFORESAID DECISION AFTER TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION HELD THAT PAYMENT M ADE TO THE BOARD FOR ROAD DEVELOPMENT WAS ALLOWABLE AS IT WAS A CASE OF STATUTORY LIABILITY AS PER PROVISIONS OF THE RELEVANT ACT, HENCE, FOLLOWIN G THE SAME RATIO, WE DISMISS THIS GROUND OF THE REVENUE. 6. GROUND NO.2 READS AS UNDER :- ON THE FACT AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 4, 04,895/- PAGE 3 OF 6 -. I.T.A.NO. 458 & 445/IND/2009 KRISHI UPAJ MANDI SAMITI, SEMRIHARCHAND MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF EXCESS CLAIM OF BOARD FEE. 7. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ASS ESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THIS ISSUE IS ALSO COVERED BY THE DE CISION OF KRISHI UPAJ MANDI SAMITI, AS REPORTED IN 12 ITJ 12, AND REFERRE D TO PARAS 13 15 OF THE SAID ORDER ON PAGE 25. WE FIND THAT CONTRIBUTIO N OF FEE TO BOARD AS PER THE RELEVANT RULES WAS FOUND TO BE ELIGIBLE FOR DED UCTION AND THE FACTS BEING IDENTICAL, HENCE, FOLLOWING THIS RATIO, WE DI SMISS THIS GROUND OF THE REVENUE. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISS ED. 9. NOW, WE SHALL TAKE UP THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IN I.T. A.NO. 458/IND/2009. 10. GROUND NOS. 1 & 2 BEING GENERAL IN NATURE, WERE NOT PRESSED, HENCE, DISMISSED, AS NOT PRESSED. 11. GROUND NO.3 READS AS UNDER :- THE LD. LOWER AUTHORITIES HAVE GRIEVOUSLY ERRED IN NOT ALLOWING THE LOSS OF RS. 7,74,000/- AND TREATED THE SAME AS TOTAL INCOME FOR THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL. 12. THE FACT IS THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED A RETURN SHOWIN G A LOSS OF RS. 7,74,000/- HAS REMAINED UN-CONTROVERTED BEFORE US, HENCE, IN COMPUTING PAGE 4 OF 6 -. I.T.A.NO. 458 & 445/IND/2009 KRISHI UPAJ MANDI SAMITI, SEMRIHARCHAND THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE, THE SAME NEEDS TO BE CONSIDERED AS SUCH AND, THEREFORE, THIS GROUND OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLO WED. 13. GROUND NO.4 RELATING TO REGISTRATION U/S 12AA WAS N OT PRESSED AS THE SAME HAD ALREADY BEEN GRANTED TO THE ASSESSE E. THUS, THIS GROUND OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. 14. THE ISSUE RAISED IN GROUND NO. 5(A) RELATING TO TRA NSFER OF FUNDS TO ROAD DEVELOPMENT FUND AND BOARD FEE WAS ALSO NOT PRESSED, AS THIS CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE HAD BEEN ALLOWED BY THE LD. C IT(A). THUS, THIS PART OF GROUND IS ALSO NOT PRESSED. 15. THE ISSUE RAISED IN GROUND NO. 5(B) RELATING TO TRA NSFER TO RESERVE FUND IS DECIDED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE AS FAIRLY ADMI TTED BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. THE LEARNED COUNSEL STATE D THAT THIS ISSUE WAS COVERED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE BY THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF KRISHI UPAJ MANDI SAMITI IN I.T.A.NO. 45 & 46/IND/2 009 ORDER DATED 24 TH APRIL, 2009. THUS, THIS PART OF THE GROUND OF THE A SSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 16. SIMILARLY, THE ISSUE RAISED IN GROUND NO. 5(C) RELA TING TO INTEREST ON PENSION RESERVE FUND AND STHAI NIDHI IS ALSO DEC IDED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. FOLLOWING THE AFORESAID ORDER, THE SAME I S DISMISSED. 17. THE ISSUE RAISED IN GROUND NO. 6 IS MERELY OF ACADE MIC INTEREST AS THESE ISSUES HAVE BEEN RAISED ON MERITS IN EARLI ER GROUNDS OF THE APPEAL. HENCE, THIS GROUND IS DISMISSED AS INFRUCTUOUS. PAGE 5 OF 6 -. I.T.A.NO. 458 & 445/IND/2009 KRISHI UPAJ MANDI SAMITI, SEMRIHARCHAND 18. IN GROUND NO. 7(A), THE ISSUE IS REGARDING ALLOWANC E OF DEPRECIATION, WHICH WAS DENIED BY THE LD. CIT(A) AS IN HIS VIEW, THE SAME AMOUNTED TO A CASE OF DOUBLE DEDUCTION. THE LEARNED COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT THIS ISSUE WAS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESS EE BY THE DECISION OF THE TRI IN THE CASE OF M.P.MADHYAM AS REPORTED IN 13 IT J 103, WHEREIN THE TRIBUNAL HAD HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS ELIGIBLE FO R DEPRECIATION ON ASSETS UTILIZED FOR ITS ACTIVITIES. HENCE, FOLLOWING THE SAME RATIO, WE ACCEPT THIS GROUND OF THE ASSESSEE. 19. AS REGARD TO ISSUE RAISED IN GROUND NO. 7(B) REGARD ING TRANSFER TO STHAI NIDHI FUND, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FAIRLY SUBMI TTED THAT THIS ISSUE WAS COVERED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE BY THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF KRISHI UPAJ MANDI SAMITI (SUPRA) AND REFERR ED TO PARA 8 & 9 AT PAGE 4 & 5 OF THE SAID ORDER, WHEREIN THE TRIBUNAL HAD HELD THAT THE MONEY TRANSFERRED TO STHAI NIDHI REMAINED WITH THE ASSESSEE, HENCE, NOT ALLOWABLE AS AN EXPENDITURE. RESPECTFULLY, FOLLOWIN G THIS RATIO, WE DISMISS THIS GROUND OF THE ASSESSEE. 20. THE ISSUE RAISED IN GROUND NO. 8 HAS ALREADY BEEN C ONSIDERED WHILE DECIDING GROUND NOS. 6 & 7 ON MERITS. HENCE, NO SEPARATE DECISION IS CALLED FOR ON GROUND NO. 8. 21. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE STA NDS PARTLY ALLOWED. PAGE 6 OF 6 -. I.T.A.NO. 458 & 445/IND/2009 KRISHI UPAJ MANDI SAMITI, SEMRIHARCHAND 22. TO SUM UP, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMI SSED AND THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. THIS ORDER HAS BEEN PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 28 TH MAY, 2010. SD/- SD/- (JOGINDER SINGH) (V. K. GUPTA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 28 TH MAY, 2010. CPU*