Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Shajapur V. The ITO Ward - 2(1), Ujjain

ITA 528/IND/2012

• Counselvise Citation: 52822714 RSA 2012
• Duration Of Justice: 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-10-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 20-09-2012
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R A VERMA
• Assessee Lawyers: S K AGRAWAL
• Keywords: Depreciation
• Section: 12; 154; 11; 15; 143(3); 12A; 10B

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH - SMC BEFORE SHRI R.C. SHARMA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER 1. ITA NO. 521/IND/2012 A.Y. 2003-04 2. ITA NO. 522/IND/2012 A.Y. 2004-05 3. ITA NO. 523/IND/2012 A.Y. 2003-04 4. ITA NO. 528/IND/2012 A.Y. 2003-04 1. KRISHI UPAJ MANDI SAMITI HATPIPLIYA, DEWAS PAN AAALK0242Q 2. KRISHI UPAJ MANDI SAMITI SUSNER PAN AAALK0321Q 3. KRISHI UPAJ MANDI SAMITI SHAJAPUR PAN AAALK0246L 4. KRISHI UPAJ MANDI SAMITI BAROD, DISTT. SHAJAPUR PAN AAALK0318B :: APPELLANTS VS INCOME TAX OFFICER 2(1), UJJAIN :: RESPONDENT 2 APPELLANTS BY SHRI S.K. AGRAWAL RESPONDENT BY SHRI R.A. VERMA DATE OF HEARING 03.10.2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 03.10.2012 O R D E R THESE ARE THE APPEALS FILED BY DIFFERENT ASSESSES AGAINST DIFFERENT ORDERS DATED 9.7.2012 AND 10. 7.2012 OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) FOR THE A.YS. 2003-04 AND 2004-05 IN THE MATTER OF ORDERS PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/ S 154 OF THE ACT. 2. EVEN THOUGH THE ASSESSEES ARE DIFFERENT BUT COMMON GROUNDS HAVE BEEN TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEES IN ALL THE APPEALS FILED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL WHICH REL ATE TO REJECTION OF APPLICATIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEES U/ S 154 OF THE ACT FOR CLAIMING EXEMPTION U/S 11 OF THE ACT . 3. RIVAL CONTENTIONS HAVE BEEN HEARD AND RECORD PERUSE D. SINCE THE FACTS ARE THE SAME IN ALL THESE APPEALS, I WOULD LIKE TO DECIDE ITA NO. 521/IND/2012 IN THE CASE OF KRISHI U PAJ MANDI SAMITI, HATPIPLIYA, FIRST. THE FACTS, IN BRIEF, ARE THAT THE 3 ASSESSEE IS A LOCAL AUTHORITY ENGAGED IN THE ACTIVI TY OF PROMOTION OF AGRICULTURE SECTOR. THE ASSESSMENT FOR THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR WAS COMPLETED U/S 143(3) O F THE ACT ON 21.3.2006 WHEREIN THE ASSESSEES CLAIM FOR DEPRE CIATION WAS DECLINED AND THE RETURN FILED AT NIL INCOME WAS ASS ESSED AT RS.3,91,623/-. THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEAL AGAIN ST THE ORDER PASSED U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT WHICH WAS DISMISSED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A). VIDE APPLICATION U/S 154 OF THE AC T FILED ON 15.6.2007 IT WAS BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE ASSES SING OFFICER THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED APPLICATION U/S 12A OF THE ACT BEFORE THE CIT, UJJAIN, ON 1.8.2006 AND THE LEARNED CIT VIDE ORDER DATED 24.1.2007 REJECTED THE SAME. THEREAFTER , THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AN D THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 23.3.2007 DIRECTED TH E CIT TO GRANT REGISTRATION U/S 12A OF THE ACT. ALONG WITH THE APPLICATION U/S 154 OF THE ACT FILED ON 15.6.2007, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED REVISED COMPUTATION OF INCOME AND AUDIT R EPORT U/S 12A(B) IN FORM NO. 10B AND CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S 1 2 OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HELD THAT THERE IS NO M ISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD IN THE ORDER PASSED U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT. 4 ACCORDINGLY, THE APPLICATION U/S 154 OF THE ACT FIL ED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS DISMISSED. 4. BY THE IMPUGNED ORDER, THE LEARNED CIT(A) CONFIRM ED THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY OBSERVING THAT SECTION 154 CANNOT BE RESORTED TO FO R THE ASSESSEES CLAIM OF ANY REBATE WHICH WAS NOT EARLIE R CLAIMED. 5. NOW, THE ASSESSEE IS IN FURTHER APPEAL BEFORE TH E TRIBUNAL. 6. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS, CAREFUL LY GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AN D FIND FROM RECORD THAT IN THE RETURN FILED FOR THE R ELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT MADE ANY CLAI M FOR DEDUCTION U/S 12 OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED U/S 143(3) WHEREIN THE ADDITION WAS MADE BY DISALLOWING THE CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION. THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS CONFIRMED BY THE LEARNED CIT( A). THE ASSESSEE ALSO FILED APPLICATION U/S 12A OF THE ACT BEFORE THE CIT WHICH WAS REJECTED AND IN FURTHER APPEAL, THE TRIBU NAL VIDE 5 ORDER DATED 23.3.2007 DIRECTED THE LEARNED CIT TO G RANT REGISTRATION U/S 12A OF THE ACT FROM THE DATE OF CR EATION OF THE SAMITI. THEREAFTER, THE ASSESSEE FILED APPLICATION U/S 154 OF THE ACT ALONG WITH REVISED COMPUTATION CLAIMING DEDUCTI ON U/S 11 OF THE ACT. NOW I HAVE TO SEE WHETHER THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS JUSTIFIED IN REJECTING THE APPLICATION FILED U/S 15 4 OF THE ACT. UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 154 OF THE ACT, ANY MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD CAN BE RECTIFIED BUT A DEBATAB LE ISSUE CANNOT BE DECIDED U/S 154 OF THE ACT. HOWEVER, IN T HE INSTANT CASE BEFORE ME, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT CLAIM ANY DEDUCTION U/S 11 OR 12 IN THE ORIGINAL RETURN FILED BY IT. THUS, THERE IS NO OCCASION FOR THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ALLOW OR DISA LLOW THE CLAIM U/S 11 OR 12 OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN T HE ORDER PASSED U/S 143(3) HAS MERELY DISALLOWED THE DEPRECI ATION WHICH WAS CONFIRMED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A). SINCE THE ASS ESSEE HAS NEITHER CLAIMED ANY DEDUCTION UNDER THE ABOVE SECTI ONS NOR THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALLOWED OR DISALLOWED THE SAM E, THERE IS NO QUESTION OF ANY MISTAKE IN THE ORDER OF THE ASSE SSING OFFICER PASSED U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT WHICH COULD BE RECTIFI ED U/S 154 OF THE ACT. A SIMILAR VIEW HAS BEEN TAKEN BY THE HONB LE HIGH 6 COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH IN THE CASE OF STEEL TUBES OF INDIA (P) LIMITED; 138 ITR 619 AND CIT VS. K.N. OIL INDJSTRIE S; 142 ITR 13. 7. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED C IT(A) IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 8. AS THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES IN ALL THE THREE APPEALS I.E. ITA NOS. 522, 523 AND 528/IND/2012 ARE EXACTLY SIMILAR, IN VIEW OF THE REASONINGS GIVEN HEREINABOVE, THESE APPEALS ARE ALSO DISMISSED. 9. FINALLY, ALL THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEES ARE DISMISSED. THIS ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT IN THE PRESENCE OF LD. REPRESENTATIVES FROM BOTH SIDES AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE HEARING ON 3 RD OCTOBER, 2012. SD (R.C.SHARMA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 3 RD OCTOBER, 2012 COPY TO: APPELLANT, RESPONDENT, CIT, CIT(A), DR, GU ARD FILE 7 DN/-33