M/s Agricultural Market Committee, Kandukur, Ongole V. The ITO, Ward-II, Ongole

ITA 553/VIZ/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 136 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0686 (ITAT-VISAKHAPATNAM)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-06-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 29-12-2009
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SUBRATA SARKAR
• Keywords: Charitable institution; Condonation of delay
• Section: 12A; 12AA

Judgement Text

PAGE 1 OF 9 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM BEFORE: SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BR BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER S NO. CASE NO. ASSTT YEAR PAN APPELLANT RESPONDENT 1 ITA NO.550/VIZAG/09 2003-04 AAALA0241P AGRICULTURAL MARKET COMMITTEE, GIDDALURU INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-II ONGOLE 2 ITA NO.551/VIZAG/09 2003-04 AALA0239H AGRICULTURAL MARKET COMMITTEE, MADDIPADU INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-II ONGOLE 3 ITA NO.552/VIZAG/09 2003-04 AAALA0240N AGRICULTURAL MARKET COMMITTEE, PODILI INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-II ONGOLE 4 ITA NO.553/VIZ/2009 2003-04 AAALA0237K AGRICULTURAL MARKET COMMITTEE, KANDUKUR INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-II ONGOLE 5 ITA NO.554/VIZ/2009 2003-04 AAALA0248E AGRICULTURAL MARKET COMMITTEE, ADDANKI INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-II ONGOLE 6 ITA NO.555/VIZ/2009 2003-04 AAALA0246L AGRICULTURAL MARKET COMMITTEE KANIGIRI INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-I ONGOLE 7 ITA NO.556/VIZ/2009 2003-04 AAALA0247Q AGRICULTURAL MARKET COMMITTEE MARKAPUR INCOME TAX OF FICER WARD-I ONGOLE 8 ITA NO.557/VIZ/2009 2003-04 AAALA0247M AGRICULTURAL MARKET COMMITTEE, ONGOLE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1 ONGOLE 9 ITA NO.558/VIZ/2009 2003-04 AAALA0243R AGRICULTURAL MARKET COMMITTEE, DARSI INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1 ONGOLE 10 ITA NO.559/VIZ/2009 2003-04 AAALA0244J AGRICULTURAL MARKET COMMITTEE CUMBUM INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-II ONGOLE 11 ITA NO.560/VIZ/2009 2003-04 AAALA0245K AGRICULTURAL MARKET COMMITTEE, SINGARAYAKONDA INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-II ONGOLE 12 ITA NO.561/VIZ/2009 2003-04 AAALA0238L AGRICULTURAL MARKET COMMITTEE,MARTUR INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-I ONGOLE APPELLANT BY: SHRI G.V.N. HARI, CA RESPONDENT BY: SHRI SUBRATA SARKAR, DR. ORDER PER BENCH: THE APPEALS FILED AT THE INSTANCE OF DIFFERENT AGR ICULTURAL MARKET COMMITTEES ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE SEPARATE ORDERS OF LD CIT REJECTING APPLICATIONS SEEKING REGISTRATION U/S 12AA OF THE A CT FILED BY THESE ASSESSEES. PAGE 2 OF 9 2. THERE IS A DELAY OF 1635 DAYS IN FILING EAC H OF THESE APPEALS BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AND THESE ASSESSEES HAVE MOVED SEPARATE PE TITION SEEKING CONDONATION OF DELAY. THE REASONS FURNISHED BY THE M, WHICH ARE IDENTICAL, ARE EXTRACTED BELOW:- 1 THE AGRICULTURAL MARKET COMMITTEES WERE GRANTED EXEMPTION U/S 10(20) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 FOR A LONG TIME. HOWEVER, IN VIEW OF THE AMENDMENT BROUGHT OUT IN THE DEFINITION OF LOCAL AUTHORITY W.E.F. 1-4-2002, AVAI LABILITY OF THE SAID EXEMPTION BECAME SUBJECT MATTER OF LITIGATION. 2. CONSIDERING THE VIEWS EXPRESSED BY EMINENT LEGAL CONSULTANTS IN VARIOUS FORUMS, OUR AGRICULTURAL MAR KET COMMITTEE THOUGHT IT APPROPRIATE TO SEEK EXEMPTION ALTERNATIVELY U/S 11 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 3. ACCORDINGLY, OUR COMMITTEE FILED AN APPLICATION ON 22- 7-2004 IN FORM 10A BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GUNTUR SEEKING REGISTRATION U/S 12A OF THE ACT AS T HE SAID REGISTRATION IS A PRECONDITION FOR SEEKING SUCH EXE MPTION U/S 11 OF THE ACT. 4. WHILE REJECTING THE SAID APPLICATION VIDE HIS OR DER DATED 28-1-2005 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX OBSERVED TH AT THE COMMITTEE IS FREE TO APPROACH THE DEPARTMENT AFTER FULFILLING THE REQUIREMENTS. 5. IT TOOK CONSIDERABLE TIME FOR THE APPELLANT TO AS CERTAIN WHAT EXACTLY THE REQUIREMENTS TO BE FULFILLED ARE. IT WAS ALSO NOT VERY CLEAR AS TO WHETHER THE PROCEEDINGS CULMIN ATED OR WERE STILL OPEN. FURTHER, AT THE RELEVANT TIME, THE OPINION PREVAILING AMONG THE VARIOUS MARKET COMMITTEES WAS THAT THE EXEMPTION U/S 10 (20) IS STILL AVAILABLE IN SPITE O F THE AMENDMENT BROUGHT OUT. THEREFORE, OUR COMMITTEE WAS UNABLE TO SINGLE OUT THE EXACT REMEDY TO BE PURSUED AGAINST ABOVE SAID ORDER DATED 28-1-2005 OF THE CIT. 6. HOWEVER, AS THE TIME PASSED BY THE CHANCES OF SUCCEEDING ON THE GROUND OF EXEMPTION U/S 10(20) BE CAME WEEK IN VIEW OF THE DECISION DT.2 ND JUNE, 2006 RENDERED BY PAGE 3 OF 9 THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT, OF WHICH THE COMMITTE E GOT THE KNOWLEDGE IN 1 ST WEEK OF AUGUST, 2006. ALSO, OUR COMMITTEE GOT CLARIFICATION TO THE EFFECT THAT THERE ARE NO S PECIFIC REQUIREMENTS TO BE FULFILLED AND WHAT IS REQUIRED I S ONLY TO FILE AGAIN AN APPLICATION BEFORE THE CIT IN VIEW OF THE SPECIFIC OBSERVATIONS MADE BY THE CIT IN HIS ORDER. 7. MEANWHILE THERE WAS CONSENSUS AMONG VARIOUS MARK ET COMMITTEES ABOUT SEEKING EXEMPTION U/S 11 AND ALSO THE COMMITTEE CAME TO KNOW THAT IN SOME OF THE CASES REGISTRATION U/S 12A WAS GRANTED. 8. THEREFORE, OUR COMMITTEE KEEPING IN VIEW THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX IN HI S ORDER DT. 28-1-2005 APPROACHED THE DEPARTMENT ONCE AGAIN BY FILING FORM 10A ON 22-8-2006. 9. THIS APPLICATION WAS ALSO REJECTED BY THE CIT VI DE HIS ORDER DATED 22-12-2006 AND AGGRIEVED BY THE SAID OR DER THE APPELLANT COMMITTEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE HON'BLE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM. 10. INITIALLY, THIS APPEAL WAS DISPOSED OFF VIDE ORD ER DT. 23- 11-2007 WHEREIN THE HON'BLE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRI BUNAL WAS PLEASED TO DIRECT THE CIT TO GRANT REGISTRATION U/S 12A. HOWEVER, THE OTHER PLEA REGARDING THE CONDONATION O F DELAY IN FILING THE APPLICATION FROM 1-4-2002 TO 22-8-2006 W AS NOT CONSIDERED AND DECIDED. 11. ACCORDINGLY, THE APPELLANT COMMITTEE PREFERRED A MISCELLANEOUS PETITION SEEKING ADJUDICATION OF THE GROUND RELATING TO CONDONATION OF DELAY. THE SAID PETITION WAS FAVOURABLY CONSIDERED AND THE APPEAL ORIGINALLY DIS POSED OFF VIDE ORDER DT. 23-11-2007 WAS RECALLED TO ADJUDICAT E THE PLEA MADE BY THE APPELLANT. 12. HOWEVER, WHEN THE SAID APPEAL WAS DISPOSED OFF VIDE ORDER DT.22-09-2008 THE HON'BLE INCOME TAX APPELLAT E TRIBUNAL HELD THAT FILING AN APPLICATION FOR THE SE COND TIME BEFORE THE CIT ON AN ISSUE WHICH WAS ALREADY DECIDE D BY HIM VIDE HIS ORDER DT. 28-1-2005 IS NOT LEGALLY TENABLE AND SINCE THE VERY APPLICATION IN FORM 10AIS NOT MAINTAINABLE THE APPEAL PREFERRED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT ON TH E BASIS OF SUCH APPLICATION DESERVES TO BE DISMISSED IN LIMINE . PAGE 4 OF 9 13. THE APPELLANT WAS SHOCKED ON RECEIVING THE SAID ORDER AS THE MISCELLANEOUS PETITION WAS FILED FOR GETTING FURTHER RELIEF AND IN THE PROCESS THE APPELLANT LOST EVEN THE BENE FIT OF REGISTRATION ORIGINALLY GRANTED TO IT VIDE ORDER DA TED 23-11- 2007. 14. IT TOOK SOME TIME FOR THE APPELLANT COMMITTEE TO UNDERSTAND THE SUBJECT IN DETAIL, AS VARIOUS INTRIC ATE LEGAL ISSUES ARE WOVEN AROUND THE SAME. 15. ON CONSULTING VARIOUS PERSONS, FINALLY IN THE F IRST WEEK OF DECEMBER, 2009, THE APPELLANT COMMITTEE WAS ADVI SED BY SR. S.RAMA RAO, ADVOCATE REPRESENTING TAX MATTERS B EFORE VARIOUS AUTHORITIES THAT AN APPEAL CAN BE FILED EVE N AT THIS STAGE ON THE ORDER OF THE CIT DT. 28-1-2005 SUBJECT HOWEVER TO THE CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL BY THE HON'BLE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL. 16. BASED ON THE ADVISE RECEIVED BY HIM, OUR COMMIT TEE HAS IMMEDIATELY TAKEN THE NECESSARY STEPS AND PREPARED THE APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER DT. 28-1-2005 OF THE CIT. 2.1 IN SHORT, IT IS NOTICED THAT THESE ASSESSEES HAVE FILED TWO SETS OF APPLICATIONS SEEKING REGISTRATION. SINCE THE LEARN ED CIT OBSERVED IN HIS FIRST ORDER THAT THESE ASSESSEES ARE FREE TO APPROACH HIM AGAIN AFTER COMPLIANCE OF ALL FORMALITIES, THEY HAVE FILED APPLICATION FOR THE SECOND TIME. THE SECOND APPLICATIONS WERE ALSO REJECTED BY LEARNED CIT, THE Y FILED APPEALS AGAINST THE SECOND ORDER DATED 22.12.2006. WHEN THE TRIBUNAL T OOK THE VIEW THAT THE SECOND APPLICATION ITSELF IS NOT MAINTAINABLE AND C ONSEQUENTLY THE APPEALS ARE ALSO NOT MAINTAINABLE, THESE ASSESSEES HAVE BEEN AD VISED TO FILE FRESH APPEAL AGAINST THE FIRST ORDER OF LEARNED CIT ON THE SAME ISSUES. ACCORDINGLY. THESE APPEALS HAVE BEEN FILED BEFORE US WITH A DELAY OF 1 635 DAYS IN EACH OF THE CASES. 2.2 THE LEARNED A.R, BY REITERATING THE SUBMISS IONS MADE IN THE PETITION, PLEADED FOR ADMISSION OF THESE APPEALS BY CONDONING THE DELAY. LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE OBJECTED TO THE PLEA OF THE LEARNED A.R. PAGE 5 OF 9 HOWEVER, WE NOTICE THAT THE LEARNED A.R. IN SUPPORT OF THE PETITION FOR CONDONING THE DELAY HAS PLACED RELIANCE ON THE FOLL OWING CASE LAW. (A) PAY & ACCOUNTS OFFICER (EAST) VS. ITO (2010 ) 3 TAXMANN.COM 85 (MAD) THE RELEVANT OBSERVATIONS MADE IN THIS DECISION OF HON'BLE MADRAS HIGH COURT ARE EXTRACTED BELOW: THE LAW OF LIMITATION HAS BEEN ENACTED ONLY TO GIV E A FINALITY TO A PROCEEDINGS AND NOT DESTROY STATUTORY APPELLATE R EMEDY. THE COURT CAN CONDONE THE DELAY IN SPITE OF THE FACT TH E DELAY IS VERY ENORMOUS, IF THE COURT IS SATISFIED, WITH THE REASO N STATED IN THE AFFIDAVIT. AT THE SAME TIME, EVEN A SHORT SPELL OF DELAY MAY STARE AT THE APPELLANT IF THE APPELLANT IS NOT ABLE TO GI VE A COGENT ACCEPTABLE REASON FOR THE DELAY. IT IS ALSO EQUALLY WELL SETTLED THAT WHEN TECHNICALITIES AND SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE AR E PITTED AGAINST EACH OTHER, THE COURT WILL ALWAYS LIEN IN FAVOUR OF SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE. HENCE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE DELAY C AN BE CONDONED AS THE APPELLANT HAS ALREADY REMITTED THE ENTIRE DEMAND (B) CIT VS. KRISHI UTPADAN MANDI SAMITI, PURV A & ORS. (2010) 231 CTR (ALL) 505: THE HEAD NOTES OF THIS DECISION READS AS UNDER: CHARITABLE TRUST-REGISTRATION UNDER S. 12A-CODONAT ION OF DELAY- ASSESSEES BEING STATUTORY BODIES ENJOYING EXEMPTION UNDER S.10(20) AND S.10(29) UPTO 1 ST APRIL, 2003 ONLY AFTER THE AMENDMENT OF S.10(20) ASSESSEES WERE REQUIRED TO MA KE NECESSARY APPLICATION SEEKING REGISTRATION UNDER S. 12A-ASSESSEES UNDER BONA FIDE BELIEF THAT STATUS QUO WAS CONTINUI NG AND THERE WAS NO NEED TO OBTAIN REGISTRATION UNDER S.12A OR W ERE NOT AWARE OF THE REQUIREMENT OF REGISTRATION-ONLY AFTER OBTAINING PERMISSION FROM THEIR CONTROLLING AUTHORITY AND LEG AL ADVICE WHICH ENTAILED CONSIDERABLE TIME IN CASE OF PUBLIC BODIES , ASSESSEES FILED THE APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION-THERE BEING SUFFICIENT AND BONA FIDE REASON FOR THE DELAY, AND CIT HAVING REFU SED TO CONDONE THE DELAY WITHOUT ASSIGNING ANY REASON, THE TRIBUNAL RIGHTLY CONDONED THE DELAY. 2.3 HAVING REGARD TO THE VARIOUS SUBMISSIONS MA DE BY THESE ASSESSEES AND ALSO CONSIDERING THE DECISION RENDERED IN THE T WO CASE LAW RELIED UPON BY THE LEARNED. A.R, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEALS PAGE 6 OF 9 BEFORE US DESERVES TO BE CONDONED. ACCORDINGLY WE CONDONE THE DELAY IN FILING THESE APPEALS BEFORE US AND ADMIT THESE APPE ALS. 3. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, LD COUNSEL APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEES SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEES HEREIN WERE CLAIMING E XEMPTION U/S 10(20) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN BRIEF THE ACT) UNDER TH E STATUS OF LOCAL AUTHORITY. AFTER THE AMENDMENT MADE IN SECTION 10( 20) WITH EFFECT FROM 01.04.2003, THESE ASSESSEES COULD NOT CLAIM EXEMPTI ON UNDER THE SAID SECTION. ALTERNATIVELY, THESE ASSESSEES SOUGHT EXE MPTION U/S 11 OF THE ACT AND IN ORDER TO CLAIM THE SAID EXEMPTION, THEY APPL IED FOR REGISTRATION U/S 12A OF THE ACT BEFORE THE CONCERNED COMMISSIONER OF INC OME TAX. SINCE THE LEGAL MATTER OF THESE AGRICULTURAL MARKET COMMITTEE S ARE BEING LOOKED AFTER BY THE COMMISSIONER AND DIRECTOR OF MARKETING ATTAC HED TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, CORRESPONDENCES TOOK PLACE BETWE EN THE DEPARTMENTS IN THIS REGARD IN GETTING PROPER GUIDANCE AND DIRECTIO N AND THE SAME HAS RESULTED IN DELAY IN FILING THE APPLICATION FOR REG ISTRATION U/S 12A OF THE ACT BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX. HOWEVER THE LD CIT REFUSED TO CONDONE THE DELAY AND ALSO REJECTED THE APPLICATION ON MERITS ALSO. AS STATED EARLIER, THE FILING OF APPEALS AGAINST THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT PASSED IN PURSUANCE OF SECOND SET OF APPLICATIONS CAUSED FURT HER DELAY IN FILING THESE APPEALS. LD AR ALSO BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE THAT TH E ISSUE OF GRANTING REGISTRATION U/S 12A HAS SINCE BEEN SETTLED BY HON BLE ITAT IN VARIOUS CASES AND ALSO FURNISHED A COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE THIS BENCH. ACCORDINGLY, THE LD AR PLEADED THAT THE DELAY IN FILING APPLICATION SEE KING REGISTRATION U/S 12A OF THE ACT BE CONDONED AND THE LD CIT MAY BE DIRECTED TO GRANT REGISTRATION U/S 12A OF THE ACT. 4. ON MERITS BOTH THE PARTIES HAVE AGREED THAT THE ISSUE IS COVERED BY THE DECISION OF HONBLE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUN AL, HYDERABAD AND VISAKHAPATNAM IN THE FOLLOWING CASES :- PAGE 7 OF 9 1. ITA NO.690/HYD/2007 & BATCH DT. 06.07.2007 (AGRICULTURAL MARKET COMMITTEE, SIDDIPET VS. DIRECT OR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), HYDERABAD. 2. ITA NO.556/HYD/2005, DT 28.02.2007 (AGRICULTURAL MARKET COMMITTEE, KARIMNAGAR VS.DIREC TOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), HYDERABAD. 3. ITA NO.42/VIZAG/2008 AND GROUP D ATED 30.05.2008 (AGRICULTURAL MARKET COMMITTEE, SOMPETA AND OTHERS VS. ITO, WRD-2, VISAKHAPATNAM) 5. THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF ITA NO.42/VIZA G/2008 HAS OBSERVED AS UNDER: IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT ALL THESE COMMITTEES AR E LOCAL AUTHORITIES CONSTITUTED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH UND ER THE ANDHRA PRADESH (AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE AND LIVE STOCK ) MARKETS ACT, 1966 AND THESE COMMITTEES ARE GOVERNED BY THE SAID ACT. THE ELIGIBILITY OF THESE COMMITTEES FOR GETTING REGISTR ATION UNDER SECTION 12AA OF THE INCOME TAX ACT IS ALSO NOT IN DI SPUTE AS THE LD CIT HAS GRANTED REGISTRATION FROM 1.4.2007. ALL TH ESE ASSESSEES HAVE ALSO NARRATED CHRONOLOGICALLY THE REASONS FOR THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPLICATIONS. ALSO IT IS A FACT THAT AL L THESE MARKET COMMITTEES HAVE ACTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DIRECT IONS OF THE GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AS THEY ARE LOCAL BODI ES UNDER THE CONTROL OF THE STATE GOVERNMENT. THE INCOME TAX DEP ARTMENT HAS ALSO NOT FIND OUT ANYTHING TO SAY THAT THESE AS SESSEES HAVE CONTRAVENED THE PROVISIONS OF THE INCOME TAX ACT SIN CE THEIR RESPECTIVE DATES OF INCEPTION. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANC ES, WE SEE NO REASON WHY THE LD CIT COULD NOT CONDONE THE DELAY I N FILING THE APPLICATIONS. 6. THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES SURROUNDING THE PRESENT APPEALS ARE IN PARITY WITH THE FACTS OF THE CASES DECIDED BY THIS BENCH IN ITA NO.42/VIZAG/2008 REFERRED SUPRA. THE HON'BLE ALLAH ABAD HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF KRISHI UTPADAN MANDI SAMITI, PURVA & ORS., SUPRA, HAS CONSIDERED THE QUESTION OF CONDONING THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPLI CATION SEEKING REGISTRATION AND ALSO THE QUESTION OF REGISTRATION OF THESE TYPE S OF SOCIETIES U/S 12A OF THE ACT. WITH REGARD TO THE CONDONING THE DELAY, THE H ON'BLE HIGH COURT HAS HELD THAT THE ASSESSEES, BEING STATUTORY PUBLIC BODIES H AVE TO OBTAIN PERMISSION PAGE 8 OF 9 FROM THEIR CONTROLLING AUTHORITY AND LEGAL ADVICE W HICH ENTAILS CONSIDERABLE TIME AND THEY CAN BE TAKEN AS SUFFICIENT AND BONA F IDE REASON FOR THE DELAY. WITH REGARD TO THE REGISTRATION, IT WAS HELD THAT S INCE THEIR OBJECTS FALL IN THE CATEGORY OF GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITY, THEY ARE ENTI TLED TO REGISTRATION U/S 12A OF THE ACT. 7. THE VIEWS WHICH ARE CONSISTENTLY TAKEN BY VA RIOUS BENCHES OF ITAT HAVE NOW BEEN FORTIFIED WITH THE DECISION OF HON'BLE ALL AHABAD HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF KRISHI UTPADAN MANDI SAMITI, PURVA & ORS., SUPRA. CONSISTENT WITH THE VIEWS ALREADY TAKEN BY THE TRIBUNAL, WE DIRECT THE LD CIT TO CONDONE THE DELAY THAT HAS OCCURRED IN FILING THE APPLICATIONS FOR REGISTRATION U/S 12AA OF THE ACT BY THESE ASSESSEES AND ALSO GRANT REGISTRAT ION IF THESE ASSESSEES HAVE OTHERWISE, COMPLIED WITH THE LEGAL REQUIREMENTS PRE SCRIBED IN THIS REGARD. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS FILED BY THESE ASSESSE ES ARE ALLOWED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 25 TH JUNE, 2010. SD/- SD/- (SUNIL KUMAR YADAV) (B R BASKARAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PVV/SPS VISAKHAPATNAM, DATE: 25-06-2010 COPY TO 1 AGRICULTURAL MARKET COMMITTEE, GIDDALURU, C/O N. BRAHMA REDDY & CO. IT PRACTITIONERS, SANTHAPET, ONGOLE 2 AGRICULTURAL MARKET COMMITTEE, MADDIPADU, C/O N. BRAHMA REDDY & CO. IT PRACTITIONERS, SANTHAPET, ONGOLE 3. AGRICULTURAL MARKET COMMITTEE PODILI, C/O N. BRA HMA REDDY & CO. IT PRACTITIONERS, SANTHAPET, ONGOLE 4. AGRICULTURAL MARKET COMMITTEE,KANDUKUR, C/O N. B RAHMA REDDY & CO. IT PRACTITIONERS, SANTHAPET, ONGOLE 5. AGRICULTURAL MARKET COMMITTEE, ADDANKI, C/O N. B RAHMA REDDY & CO. IT PRACTITIONERS, SANTHAPET, ONGOLE 6. AGRICULTURAL MARKET COMMITTEE,KANIRIGI, C/O N. B RAHMA REDDY & CO. IT PAGE 9 OF 9 PRACTITIONERS, SANTHAPET, ONGOLE 7. AGRICULTURAL MARKET COMMITTEE, MARKARPUR, C/O N. BRAHMA REDDY & CO. IT PRACTITIONERS, SANTHAPET, ONGOLE 8. AGRICULTURAL MARKET COMMITTEE,ONGOLE, C/O N. BRA HMA REDDY & CO. IT PRACTITIONERS, SANTHAPET, ONGOLE 9. AGRICULTURAL MARKET COMMITTEE, DARSI, C/O N. BRA HMA REDDY & CO. IT PRACTITIONERS, SANTHAPET, ONGOLE 10. AGRICULTURAL MARKET COMMITTEE, CUMBUM, C/O N. BRAHM A REDDY & CO. IT PRACTITIONERS, SANTHAPET, ONGOLE 11. AGRICULTURAL MARKET COMMITTEE, SINGARAYAKONDA, C/O N. BRAHMA REDDY & CO. IT PRACTITIONERS, SANTHAPET, ONGOLE 12. AGRICULTURAL MARKET COMMITTEE, MARTUR, C/O N. BRAHM A REDDY & CO. IT PRACTITIONERS, SANTHAPET, ONGOLE 13. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, ONGOLE 14. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2, ONGOLE 15. THE C.I.T. GUNTUR 16. THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, INCOME TAX APPELLAT E TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM 17. GUARD FILE SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM