Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Uttar Pradesh V. JCIT, Noida

ITA 6445/DEL/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 87123 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-03-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 25-11-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: GAURAV DUDEJA
• Assessee Lawyers: AKARSH GARG ARS
• Keywords: Charitable institution; Corroborative evidences
• Section: 6; 12; 144; 11

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH D NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI I.C. SUDHIR AND SHRI J.S. REDDY ITA NO.6445/DEL/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 KRISHI UTPADAN MANDI SAMITI, VS. JOINT CIT, DADRI, DISTRICT: GAUTAMBUDH NAGAR, RANGE-1, (UP). NOIDA. (PAN: AAAAK5465G) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY: SHRI GAU RAV DUDEJA, SR. DR ASSESSEE BY: S/SHRI SANJAY KUM AR & AKARSH GARG, ARS DATE OF HEARING : 08 .01.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: :03.2015 ORDER PER I.C. SUDHIR: JUDICIAL MEMBER THE ASSESSEE HAS QUESTIONED FIRST APPELLATE ORDER ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1. BECAUSE THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN LAW A ND ON FACTS IN HOLDING THAT PAYMENT OF ANSDAN AND DEVELOPMENT C ESS TO MANDI PARISHAD AMOUNTING TO RS.1,78,52,966 AND RS.5 1,45,278 RESPECTIVELY IS NOT TO BE TREATED AS APPLICATION OF INCOME IN COMPLETE DISREGARD TO THE DECISION OF HON'BLE SUPRE ME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. KRISHI UTPADAN MANDI SAMITI REP ORTED IN (2012) 348 ITR 566 (S.C); 2. BECAUSE THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN LAW A ND ON FACTS IN HOLDING THAT ADDITION MADE TO FIXED ASSETS DURING T HE YEAR OF 2 RS.99,93,065 IS NOT TO BE TREATED AS APPLICATION OF INCOME IN THE ABSENCE OF DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE. 3. BECAUSE THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN LAW A ND ON FACTS IN HOLDING THAT NO EVIDENCE WAS FURNISHED DURING THE P ROCEEDINGS BEFORE HIM IN RELATION TO EXPENDITURE INCURRED AND NON-APPEARANCE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 4. BECAUSE THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN LAW A ND ON FACTS IN HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WHILE COMPLETIN G THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SEC. 144 OF THE ACT, IS BOUND TO E XTEND THE BENEFIT OF ALL THE STATUTORY PROVISIONS APPLICABLE ON THE ASSESSEE AND IN VIEW OF THE SAME SHOULD HAVE EXTENDED THE BE NEFIT OF EXEMPTION UNDER SEC. 10(26AAB) OF THE ACT. 2. THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THE GROUNDS IS LIMITED TO THE VALIDITY OF REJECTION OF ASSESSEES CLAIM FOR TREATMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SH ARES AT RS.51,45,278, ANSHDAN AT RS.1,78,52,966 AND ADDITION TO FIXED A SSETS AT RS.99,93,065, AN APPLICATION OF INCOME. THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) HAS UPHELD THE ABOVE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 3. IN SUPPORT OF THE GROUNDS, THE LEARNED AR SUBMIT TED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AN INSTITUTION CREATED IN TERMS OF THE NOTIFICAT ION NO.H-5359-12-B- 1047(3)65 DATED 27.10.1965 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF UTTRA PRADESH UNDER SEC. 5 READ WITH SEC. 6 OF THE U.P. KRISHI UT PADAN MANDI ADHINIYAM, 3 1964. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE APPELLANT WAS REGISTERE D UNDER SEC. 12 A OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961. THUS, IT WAS BEING ASSESSED A S CHARITABLE INSTITUTION. HE CONTENDED THAT AS PER THE FINANCE ACT, 2008 W.E. F. 01.04.2009 I.E. ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10, A NEW SECTION 10(26AAB) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 HAS BEEN INSERTED AS PER WHICH ANY INCOME OF A N AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKET COMMITTEE OF BOARD CONSTITUTED UNDER ANY LAW FOR THE TIME BEING ENFORCED FOR THE PURPOSE OF REGULATING THE MARKETIN G OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE. THUS, THE INCOME OF THE APPELLANT WAS EXEMPT UNDER SEC. 10(26AAB) OF THE ACT, APART FROM ITS ELIGIBILITY OF CLAIM OF EXEMPTI ON UNDER SEC. 11 OF THE ACT. HE SUBMITTED THAT INADVERTENTLY THE CLAIM OF EXEMPT ION UNDER SEC. 10(26AAB) WAS NOT MADE IN THE RETURN FILED FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR WHILE SHOWING THE INCOME AS EXEMPT UNDER SEC. 11 OF THE A CT. HE SUBMITTED THAT DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ACCOUNTANT O F THE APPELLANT GOT BED RIDDEN, HENCE, COULD NOT APPEAR BEFORE THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER TO REPRESENT THE CASE OF APPELLANT PROPERLY WHICH RESULTED IN COMPLE TION OF ASSESSMENT UNDER SEC. 144 OF THE ACT. HE POINTED OUT THAT IN THE SUB SEQUENT ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 AND THEREAFTER, CLAIM OF SUCH EXEMPTION UND ER SEC. 10(26AAB) HAS BEEN ALLOWED IN THE ASSESSMENT FRAMED UNDER SEC. 14 3(3) OF THE ACT. HE SUBMITTED THAT BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS), ALL THE RELEVANT EVIDENCE WITH WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS WERE MADE AVAILABLE CONTEN DING THAT THE APPELLANT 4 TO GET EXEMPTION UNDER SEC. 10(26AAB) OF THE ACT BU T HE HAS SIMPLY UPHELD THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. 4. THE LEARNED SR. DR ON THE OTHER HAND PLACED RELI ANCE ON THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW WITH THIS SUBMISSION THAT DES PITE AFFORDING OF MORE THAN SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITIES TO THE APPELLANT TO P RESENT ITS CASE BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW, SUPPORTING WITH THE REQUIRED DET AILS AS WELL AS EVIDENCE, THE APPELLANT DID NOT BOTHER TO COOPERATE WITH THE AUTHORITIES BELOW IN DISPOSAL OF THE MATTER. THE APPELLANT THUS DOES NOT DESERVE ANY RELIEF FROM THE ITAT. 5. HAVING GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIE S BELOW, WE FIND SUBSTANCE IN THE OPPOSITION OF THE LEARNED SR. DR T HAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT COOPERATE WITH THE AUTHORITIES BELOW DESPITE HAVING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITIES OF BEING HEARD AND THUS THE AUTHORITIES BELOW WERE HAVING NO OPTION BUT TO DECIDE THE MATTER ADVERSELY IN ABSENCE OF REQUISITE DETAILS WITH SUPPORTING EVIDENCE. WE THUS, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, SET ASIDE THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO CONSIDER THE ISSUES RAISED IN THE GROUNDS BEFORE US AFRESH AFTER AFFORDING PROPER PROPERTY OF BEING HEA RD TO THE ASSESSEE. THE 5 ASSESSEE IS ALSO DIRECTED TO COOPERATE WITH THE ASS ESSING OFFICER IN PROCEEDINGS. THE GROUNDS ARE THUS ALLOWED FOR STATI STICAL PURPOSES. 6. IN RESULT, THE APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. DECISION PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 23 .03.20 15 SD/- SD/- ( J.S. REDDY ) ( I.C. SUDHIR ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 23 /03/2015 MOHAN LAL COPY FORWARDED TO: 1) APPELLANT 2) RESPONDENT 3) CIT 4) CIT(APPEALS) 5) DR:ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR 6 DATE DRAFT DICTATED ON COMPUTER 19.03.2015 DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 19.03.2015 DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER. APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.PS/PS KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE AR DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER.