M/s Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, V. The CIT,

ITA 474/IND/2007

• Counselvise Citation: [2009] 115 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1438 (ITAT-INDORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 2 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-11-2009
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 24-11-2009
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 03-09-2007
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: V K KARAN
• Assessee Lawyers: S K AGARWAL
• Keywords: Depreciation; Reasonable cause
• Section: 12; 11

Judgement Text

PAGE 1 OF 3 - I.T.A.NO. 474/IND/2007 KUMS, KHATEGAON, DISTRICT DEWAS IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH : INDORE BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI V.K. GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PAN NO. : N.A. I.T.A.NO. 474/IND/2007 A.Y. : 2003-04 KRISHI UPAJ MANDI SAMITI, I.T.O., KHATEGAON, VS WARD 1(2), DISTRICT DEWAS UJJAIN APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : SHRI S.K.AGARWAL, C. A. 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. THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARISES OUT OF ORD ER OF THE LD. CIT(A), UJJAIN, DATED 22.11.2006, FOR THE ASSESSME NT YEAR 2003-04. 2. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND HAVE ALSO PERUSE D THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. 3. THIS APPEAL IS TIME BARRED BY 217 DAYS, HENCE, THE LEARNED COUNSEL WAS ASKED TO EXPLAIN THE REASONS FOR SUCH D ELAY. THE LEARNED COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT IT WAS THE FIRST YEAR WHEN T HE KRISHI UPAJ MANDI SAMITI WAS REQUIRED TO FILE THE INCOME TAX RETURN A ND THIS BEING PAGE 2 OF 3 - I.T.A.NO. 474/IND/2007 KUMS, KHATEGAON, DISTRICT DEWAS GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT OPERATING MOSTLY IN REMOTE AR EAS WITHOUT HAVING ANY EXPERT PERSON TO GUIDE ABOUT THE STATUTORY PROV ISIONS RELATING TO FILING OF APPEALS. HENCE, SUCH DELAY OCCURRED. THE LD. DEP ARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE STRONGLY OPPOSED THE CONDONATION OF DELAY, AS IT WAS NOT FOR A VALID GROUND. 4. WE, HOWEVER, ON CONSIDERATION OF THE FACT THAT THIS IS THE FIRST YEAR FOR WHICH SUCH PROCEEDINGS HAVE TAKEN PLACE AN D MANDI SAMITIS ARE NOT SO EQUIPPED TO HANDLE SUCH KIND OF SITUATIONS. HENCE, IN OUR OPINION, THERE EXISTS REASONABLE CAUSE FOR SUCH DELAY. ACCOR DINGLY, WE CONDONE THE SAME. THE ASSESSEE, THEREAFTER, SUBMITTED THAT AN ADDITIONAL GROUND HAD BEEN RAISED, WHICH WENT TO THE ROOT OF THE MATT ER AND WAS OF PURELY LEGAL NATURE, HENCE, LIABLE TO BE ACCEPTED. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, HOWEVER, OPPOSED THE SAME, PARTICUL ARLY IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT MAIN GROUND OF THE APPEAL WAS TO BE DISMI SSED AS NOT PRESSED, AS THE ASSESSEE HAD HIMSELF CONCEDED THAT ISSUE. THE A DDITIONAL GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE READS AS UNDER :- THE ASSESSEE IS GRANTED REGISTRATION VIDE ORDER DA TED 21.02.2007 U/S 12A/12AA OF INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961, WI TH EFFECT FROM THE DATE OF CREATION OF MANDI SAMITI BY HON'BLE CIT UJJAIN, HENCE, INCOME EARNED BY ASSESSEE IS EXE MPT U/S 11 & 12 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961. PAGE 3 OF 3 - I.T.A.NO. 474/IND/2007 KUMS, KHATEGAON, DISTRICT DEWAS 5. WE FIND THAT THE ISSUE RAISED IN THIS ADDITIONAL GR OUND IS CRITICAL AND WOULD HAVE AN IMPACT NOT ONLY ON THE COMPUTATIO N OF INCOME OF THIS YEAR, BUT ALSO ON ALL OTHER YEARS. FURTHER, NO PROB E INTO THE FACTS IS REQUIRED TO BE MADE TO DECIDE THIS ISSUE. ACCORDING LY, WE ADMIT THE SAME AND ALLOW THE SAME. 6. THE MAIN GROUND RAISED IN THE APPEAL RELATING TO CO MPUTATION OF QUANTUM OF DEPRECIATION WAS NOT PRESSED, HENCE, DIS MISSED, AS NOT PRESSED. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE STA NDS PARTLY ALLOWED. 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