ITO, WARD- 60(4), NEW DELHI V. FISH POULTRY AND EGG MARKETING COMMITTEE, DELHI

ITA 4602/DEL/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9722 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 5 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-01-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 14-07-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DHEERAJ GARG
• Assessee Lawyers: PARAS CHAUDHARY; MRS AVNISHAHLAWAT
• Section: 201; 13; 10

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: B NEW DELHI SHRI K.NARASIMHA CHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ANADEE NATH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 4602/DEL/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013-14 INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD 60(4), NEW DELHI. (APPELLANT) VS FISH POULTRY & EGG MARKETING COMMITTEE, FISH MARKET COMPLEX, GAZIPUR, NEW DELHI. PAN: AAATF 0883G (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY SH. DHEERAJ GARG, SR. DR RE SPONDENT BY MRS. AVNISHAHLAWAT, ADV. & SH. PARAS CHAUDHARY, ADVOCATE ORDER PER K. NARASIMHA CHARY, JM: CHALLENGING THE ORDER DATED 24/05/2017 IN APPEAL NO . 10056/16-17 PASSED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A PPEALS)-19, NEW DELHI (LD. CIT(A)), FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013- 14, IN THE CASE OF M/S FISH POULTRY AND EGG MARKETING COMMITTEE (THE ASSE SSEE), REVENUE PREFERRED THIS APPEAL CHALLENGING THE EXEMPTION ALL OWED BY LD. CIT(A) UNDER SECTION 10 (26AAB) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 196 1 (FOR SHORT THE ACT). DATE OF HEARING 02.01.2020 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 06.01.2020 2 2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A MARKETING COMMITTEE ESTABLISHED UNDER DELHI AGRICULTURAL PROD UCE MARKETING (REGULATION) ACT, 1976 (DAPM ACT) AND ENTRUSTED W ITH THE DUTY OF SUPERVISING, CONTROLLING AND PROVIDING FACILITIES T O THE TRADERS OPERATING IN THE COMMITTEE PREMISES. ASSESSEE REGULATES THE MARK ETING OF FISH, POULTRY AND EGGS AND THE RAW MATERIAL WAS BROUGHT BY THE WH OLESALERS AND AFTER REFINING THE SAME, NAMELY, AFTER CHECKING, CLEANING , SORTING/SEGREGATING, CHOPPING, PRESERVING, PACKING, THE SAME IS SUPPLIED TO VARIOUS BUYERS BY THE TRADERS WHO ARE OPERATING IN THE COMMITTEE AREA AND HAVE BEEN ALLOTTED SPACE TO DO BUSINESS. 3. FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14, IT HAD FILED IT S RETURN OF INCOME ON 01.10.2013 DECLARING A LOSS OF RS. 3,00,343/-AFT ER CLAIMING DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 10(26AAB) OF THE ACT TO THE TUNE OF R S.1,24,23,822/-. CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LEARNED ASSES SING OFFICER WAS THAT THE PRODUCE MARKETED BY IT IS COVERED IN THE SCHEDU LE WITH REFERENCE TO SECTION 119 OF DAPM ACT. LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER, HOWEVER, HELD THAT THE PROVISIONS OF INCOME TAX ACT ARE APPLIED IN ITS OWN SENSE AND ANY REGULATION OR RULE BY AN ESTATE BORDER GOVERNMENT T O INCLUDE CERTAIN ITEMS IN THE SCHEDULE OF ARTICLES OR THINGS TO BE M ARKETED BY ANY MARKETING BOARD DOES NOT RENDER THE PROVISIONS OF I NCOME TAX ACT INEFFECTIVE. HE, THEREFORE, DISALLOWED THE DEDUCTIO N UNDER SECTION 10(26AAB) OF THE ACT TO THE TUNE OF RS.1,24,23,822/ -AND ADDED THE UNVERIFIABLE EXPENSES TO THE TUNE OF RS.59,38,917/- AND CONCLUDED THE ASSESSMENT BY ORDER DATED 29/02/2016 AT RS. 1,83,62 ,740/-. 4. AGGRIEVED BY SUCH AN ADDITION, ASSESSEE PREFERRE D AN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). LD. CIT(A), BY WAY OF IMPUGNED ORDE R, OBSERVED THAT THE 3 DAPM ACT DOES NOT RESTRICT CONSTITUTION OF COMMITTE E FOR MARKETING AGRICULTURAL PRODUCT; THAT IT HAS WITHIN ITS SCOPE VARIOUS OTHER COMMODITIES LIKE DECORATIVE PLANTS, PRODUCTION OF HONEY AND SIL K; THAT ALSO INCLUDES THE MARKETING OF FOREST PRODUCTS WHICH OTHERWISE DO NOT FALL WITHIN THE DEFINITION OF AGRICULTURE; THE DPM ACT, THEREFORE, HAS GIVEN A VERY WIDE MEANING TO THE WORDSAGRICULTURAL PRODUCE; THAT AP PARENTLY, THE INCOME TAX ACT HAS ALSO IMPORTED THE WORDS AGRICULTURAL PR ODUCE FROM THE DPM ACT TO COVER APMC NOTIFIED UNDER IT TO PROVIDE THE BENEFIT TO ALL APMCS PROVIDED IN THE DPM ACT OR SIMILAR ACTS IN OTHER ST ATES; AND THAT IT COULD HAVE BEEN THE INTENTION OF THE ACT TO LEAVE OUT TO SOME OF THE COMMITTEES, NOTIFIED UNDER THE DPM ACT ESPECIALLY W HEN ALL THE COMMITTEES WERE RENDERING SIMILAR SERVICES IN RESPE CT OF VARIOUS PRODUCTS. 5. HE FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE WORDS AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE, USED IN CONNECTION WITH APMC CONNOTES A VERY WIDE MEANING B RINGING WITHIN ITS PURVIEW LARGE GAMUT OF COMMODITIES BESIDES AGRICULT URAL PRODUCTS; THAT SINCE THE INCOME ACCRUES TO THE APMCS FROM PURSUIN G TO THESE ACTIVITIES, THE INCOME TAX ACT ALSO PERCEIVES A WIDER MEANING B Y REFERRING TO THE NOTIFIED COMMITTEES; AND THAT, THEREFORE, ON A READ ING OF THE PROVISIONS OF DPM ACT IN THE LIGHT OF SECTION 10(26AAB) OF THE AC T, THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO CLAIM EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 10(26AAB) OF THE ACT. REVENUE IS, THEREFORE, AGGRIEVED BY SUCH A FINDING OF THE L D. CIT(A) AND PREFERRED THIS APPEAL. 6. AT THE OUTSET IT IS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. AR THAT A SIMILAR QUESTION HAD ARISEN IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE ASSESSMEN T YEARS 2009-10, 2010- 11 AND 2012-13 AND THE REVENUE HAD PREFERRED APPEAL S FOR SUCH ASSESSMENT YEARS IN ITA NOS. 4187 TO 4189 /DEL/ 201 6 WHICH, A COORDINATE 4 BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL BY ORDER DATED 31/5/2019 DIS MISSED BY UPHOLDING THE VIEW TAKEN BY LD. CIT(A). LD. DR DOES NOT CONTR ADICT THIS FACT. A COPY OF ORDER DATED 31/5/2019 IN ITA NOS. 4187 TO 4189 /DEL / 2016 IS PRODUCED. 7. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE RECORD IN THE LIGHT OF THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE LD. AR. UNDER IDENTICAL CIRCUMSTANCES, IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2009-10, 2010-11 AND 2012- 13 THE TRIBUNAL UPHELD THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND DISMISSE D THE REVENUES APPEAL AND ENDORSED THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE LD. CIT(A ) WHICH IS SIMILAR TO THE ONE TAKEN FOR THIS ASSESSMENT YEAR ALSO. SINCE THE FACTS AND ISSUE IS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL FOR T HE EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEARS, WHICH REMAIN UNDISTURBED, WE ARE OF THE CONS IDERED OPINION THAT THERE ARE NO COMPELLING REASONS TO TAKE A DIFFERENT VIEW FOR THIS YEAR. WE, THEREFORE, WHILE RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING SUCH VIEW T AKEN BY THE TRIBUNAL FOR THE EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEARS, HOLD THAT THE ASSESSE E IS ENTITLED TO THE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 10(26AAB) OF THE ACT. WE CO NSEQUENTLY HOLD THAT THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE DEVOID OF ANY MERITS AND ARE LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED. 8. IN THE RESULT APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 6 TH JANUARY, 2020. SD/- SD/- (ANADEE NATH MISHRA) (K. NARASIMHA CHARY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 06/01/2020 *AKS*