Kaliyaganj Regulated Market Committee, Uttar Dinajpur V. ITO, Ward - 1, Raiganj, Uttar Dinajpur

ITA 648/KOL/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5041 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 11 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-04-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 11-08-2014
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 29-04-2011
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Charitable institution
• Section: 143(3); 12AA; 2; 11

Judgement Text

ITA NOS.648-652/K/11-B-AM KALIAGANJ REGULATED MARKET COMMITTEE 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, B BENCH, K OLKATA BEFORE : SHRI N.V.VASUDEVAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER , AND SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTAN T MEMBER ITA NOS.648 TO 652/KOL/2011 A.YS 2003-04 TO 2007-08 M/S. KALIYAGANJ REGULATED MARKET VS. I.T.O WARD-1 , RAIGANJ COMMITTEE, PAN: AAATK9441P (APPELLANT) (RE SPONDENT) FOR THE APPELLANT/ASSESSEE: S/SH. BA LCHAND AGARWAL, ADVOCATE, VIJAY KR. AGARWAL, FCA, LD.ARS FOR THE RESPONDENT/DEPARTMENT: S HRI SANJAY MUKHERJEE, JCIT, LD.SR.DR DATE OF HEARING: 04-04-2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 6- 4 -2 016 ORDER SHRI M.BALAGANESH, AM THESE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARISE OUT OF THE C OMMON CONSOLIDATED ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A), JALPAIGURI IN APPEAL NOS. 109 & 110/RNJ/CIT(A)/JAL/06-07 ; 137/RNJ/CIT(A)/JAL/07-8; 168/RNJ/CIT(A)/JAL/08-09 A ND 07/RNJ/CIT(A)/JAL/09- 10 FOR THE ASST YEARS 2003-04 , 2004-05, 2005-06 , 2006-07 AND 2007-08 RESPECTIVELY ARISING OUT OF THE SEPARATE ORDERS OF ASSESSMENT FR AMED BY THE LEARNED AO U/S 143(3) R.WSS 147 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT). 2. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSES SEE IS A REGULATED MARKET COMMITTEE SET UP UNDER THE WEST BENGAL AGRICULTURE PRODUCE MARKETING (REGULATION) ACT, 1972 AND ITS SOURCE OF INCOME BEING MARKET FEE S, CHECK POST FEES, TOLL COLLECTION, LICENCE FEES ETC APART FROM INTEREST INCOME FROM BA NK DEPOSITS. THE ASSESSEE COMMITTEE WAS FORMED TO PROVIDE FOR THE REGULATION OF MARKETING OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE IN WEST BENGAL AND FOR MATTERS CONNECTED TH EREWITH. THE ASSESSEE COMMITTEE IS EXISTING WITH NOT FOR PROFIT MOTIVE AND IS DULY REGISTERED WITH THE INCOME TAX ITA NOS.648-652/K/11-B-AM KALIAGANJ REGULATED MARKET COMMITTEE 2 DEPARTMENT U/S 12AA OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE INCOM E WAS EXEMPT U/S 10 OF THE ACT UPTO ASST YEAR 2002-03. THEREAFTER, THE ASSESSEE SOUGHT REGISTRATION U/S 12AA OF THE ACT AS A PUBLIC CHARITABLE TRUST WHICH WAS DULY GRA NTED TO THE ASSESSEE WITH EFFECT FROM 1.4.2002 AND ACCORDINGLY THE ASSESSEE STARTED CLAIMING EXEMPTION U/S 11 OF THE ACT FROM ASST YEAR 2003-04 ONWARDS. THESE FACTS AR E NOT DISPUTED AND INDISPUTABLE. AGAIN, PURSUANT TO INSERTION OF SECTION 10(26AAB) O F THE ACT BY FINANCE ACT 2008 W.E.F 1.4.2009, THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE WAS AGA IN EXEMPT THEREON. FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE, THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 10(26AAB) OF THE ACT ARE REPRODUCED HEREIN BELOW:- SECTION 10 INCOMES NOT INCLUDED IN TOTAL INCOME IN COMPUTING THE TOTAL INCOME OF A PREVIOUS YEAR OF ANY PERSON, ANY INCOME FALLING WITHIN ANY OF THE FOLLOWING CLAUSES SHALL N OT BE INCLUDED (26AAB) ANY INCOME OF AN AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARK ET COMMITTEE OR BOARD CONSTITUTED UNDER ANY LAW FOR THE TIME BEING IN FOR CE FOR THE PURPOSE OF REGULATING THE MARKETING OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE. 3. THE ASSESSEE FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASST YEARS 2003-04 TO 2007-08 CLAIMING EXEMPTION U/S 11 OF THE ACT WITH THE FOLLO WING DETAILS :- AY GROSS INCOME/RECEIPT EXCESS INCOME OVER E XPENDITURE % OF EXCESS INCOME OVER EXPENDITURE 2003-04 RS. 97,40,995/- RS. 42,83,906/- 43.98% 2004-05 RS. 93,80,549/- RS.41,09,043/- 43.80% 2005-06 RS.1,22,85,661/- RS.52,08,165/- 57.6% 2006 - 07 RS. 88,74,124.79 RS. 19,32,297.86 78.22% 2007 - 08 RS.1,19,68,743.85 RS.25,95,652.39 78.41% 3.1. THE LEARNED AO OBSERVED FROM THE CHART THAT T HE ASSESSEE HAD NOT SPENT 85% OF THE RECEIPTS FOR THE OBJECTS OF THE TRUST AND HAD N OT FURNISHED FORM NO. 10 PRESCRIBED UNDER RULE 17 OF THE IT RULES WITHIN THE DUE DATE O F FILING THE RETURN U/S 139(1) OF THE ACT. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT SPENT THE MINIMUM REQUIRED AMOUNT AT 85% OF RECEIPTS AND IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT FORM NO. 10 N OT FILED BEFORE THE LEARNED AO ITA NOS.648-652/K/11-B-AM KALIAGANJ REGULATED MARKET COMMITTEE 3 WITHIN THE TIME LIMIT PRESCRIBED IN RULE 17 OF THE IT RULES, THE LEARNED AO BROUGHT THE SURPLUS IN EXCESS OF 15% TO TAX BY IGNORING THE FORM NO. 10 FILED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS FOR ALL THE ASSESSMENT YEARS. ON FIRST APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE ARGUED THAT SINCE THE FORM NO. 10 WAS FILED BEFORE THE COMPLETION OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE LEARNED AO OUGHT TO HAVE TAKEN COGNIZANCE OF THE SAME BY ALLOWING THE ASSESSEE TO ACCUMULATE THE FUN DS AND GRANT EXEMPTION U/S 11 OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS NAGPUR HOTEL OWNERS ASSOCIATION REPORTED IN (2001) 247 ITR 201 (SC) , WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT THE INTIMATION REQUIRED U /S 11 (FORM NO.10) HAS TO BE FURNISHED BEFORE THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY COMPLET ES THE CONCERNED ASSESSMENT. THE LEARNED CITA OBSERVED THAT THE ORDER OF THE APEX CO URT RELATES TO A CASE FOR AY 1974- 75 AND 1975-76 WHEN NO TIME LIMIT FOR GIVING THE NO TICE U/S 11(2) WAS MENTIONED IN RULE 17 OF THE IT RULES AND AT THAT TIME, THE SAME WAS MENTIONED IN THE FORM PRESCRIBED FOR THIS PURPOSE. THE LEARNED CIT(A) OB SERVED THAT THE APEX COURT HELD :- 'IT IS ABUNDANTLY CLEAR FROM THE WORDING OF SUB-SEC TION (2) OF SECTION 11 THAT IT IS MANDATORY FOR THE PERSON CLAI MING THE BENEFIT OF SECTION 11 TO INTIMATE TO THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY T HE PARTICULARS REQUIRED, UNDER RULE 17 IN FORM NO.10 OF THE RULES. IF DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DOES NOT HAVE TH E NECESSARY INFORMATION, QUESTION OF EXCLUDING SUCH INCOME FROM ASSESSMENT DOES NOT ARISE AT ALL. AS A MATTER OF FACT, THIS BENEFIT OF EXCLUDING THIS PARTICULAR PART OF THE INCOME FROM THE NET OF TAXATION ARISES FROM SECTION 11 AND IS SUBJECTED TO THE CONDITIONS SPECIFIED THEREIN. THER EFORE, IT IS NECESSARY THAT THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY MUST HAVE THIS INFORMA TION AT THE TIME HE COMPLETES THE ASSESSMENT. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY SUC H INFORMATION, IT WILL NOT BE POSSIBLE FOR THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY TO GIVE THE ASSESSEE THE BENEFIT OF SUCH EXCLUSION AND ONCE THE ASSESSMENT IS SO COM PLETED. IN OUR OPINION, IT WOULD BE FUTILE TO FIND FAULT WITH THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY FOR HAVING INCLUDED SUCH INCOME IN THE ASSESSABLE INCOME OF T HE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, EVEN ASSUMING THAT THERE IS NO VALID LIMITATION PRE SCRIBED UNDER THE ACT AND THE RULES EVEN THEN, IN OUR OPINION, IT IS REAS ONABLE TO PRESUME THAT THE INTIMATION REQUIRED UNDER SECTION 11 HAS TO BE FURNISHED BEFORE THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY COMPLETES THE CONCERNED ASSESSM ENT BECAUSE SUCH REQUIREMENT IS MANDATORY AND WITHOUT THE PARTICULAR S OF THIS INCOME, THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY CANNOT ENTERTAIN THE CLAIM OF T HE ASSESSEE UNDER ITA NOS.648-652/K/11-B-AM KALIAGANJ REGULATED MARKET COMMITTEE 4 SECTION 11 OF THE ACT, THEREFORE, COMPLIANCE WITH T HE REQUIREMENT OF THE ACT WILL HAVE TO BE ANY TIME BEFORE THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. 3.2. THE LEARNED CIT(A) FURTHER OBSERVED THAT RULE 17 HAS BEEN SUBSTITUTED W.E.F. 1.4.1990 AS BELOW:- 'NOTICE FOR ACCUMULATION OF INCOME BY CHARITABLE O R RELIGIOUS TRUST OR INSTITUTION OR ASSOCIATION REFERRED TO IN CLAUSE (2 1) AND (23) OF SECTION 10- RULE -17 : THE NOTICE TO BE GIVEN TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER OR THE PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY UNDER SUB- SECTION (2) OF SECTION 11 OR U NDER THE SAID PROVISION AS APPLICABLE UNDER CLAUSE (21) OR CLAUSE (23) OF S ECTION 10 SHALL BE IN FORM NO.10 AND SHALL BE DELIVERED BEFORE THE EXPIRY OF THE TIME ALLOWED UNDER SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 139, FOR FURNISHIN G THE RETURN OF INCOME.' ACCORDINGLY, THE LEARNED OBSERVED THAT THE DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT WAS NOT BASED ON THE PRESENT RULE 17 OF THE IT RULES AND TO THAT EXTENT, THE DECISION IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE. HE F URTHER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO ESTABLISH THAT THE FUNDS SET APART IN THE AFORESAID ASSESSMENT YEARS HAVE BEEN UTILISED FOR THE SPECIFIED PURPOSE WITHIN A PERIOD OF 5 YEARS AS PER THE SECOND PROVISO TO SECTION 11(2) OF THE ACT. IN RESPECT OF ASST YE ARS 2006-07 AND 2007-08, THE LEARNED AO HAS CLEARLY MENTIONED THAT THE PURPOSE O F SETTING A PART OF THE FUND HAS NOT BEEN MENTIONED IN THE AUDIT REPORTS. THE ASSESSEE HAS VAGUELY MENTIONED IT IN FORM NO. 10. BUT THERE WAS NO BASIS OF SUCH INFORMATION AS THE AUDIT REPORT IS NOT SUPPORTED BY THE SAME. IT WAS FURTHER OBSERVED THAT IN ONE C ERTIFICATE SIGNED BY THE SECRETARY OF THE ASSESSEE COMMITTEE FURNISHED ALONG WITH SUBMISS ION FOR ASST YEAR 2003-04 THAT IT HAS BEEN DECIDED BY THE COMMITTEE THAT EXCESS INCOM E WILL BE UTILIZED FOR CONSTRUCTION OF LINK ROADS, DEVELOPMENT OF RURAL HUT, BAZAAR SHE DS AND OTHER DEVELOPMENT WORKS WITHIN 10 YEARS. IT WAS FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THIS CERTIFICATE HAS NO CREDENTIAL AS THE SECRETARY WHILE SIGNING THE SAME, DID NOT MENTION T HE YEAR WHEN THE SAME WAS SIGNED. SECONDLY, SECRETARY WAS NOT THE COMPETENT PERSON TO TAKE SUCH DECISION. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT THE ASSESSEE COMMITTEE HAD TAKEN SUCH RESOLUTION IN ANY MEETING. EVEN, IN THE ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE, THERE IS NO REFLEC TION OF SUCH SETTING APART FUND. ON ITA NOS.648-652/K/11-B-AM KALIAGANJ REGULATED MARKET COMMITTEE 5 THE OTHER HAND, WHEN THIS CERTIFICATE WAS FURNISHED , THE LIMIT OF UTILIZATION OF THE FUND HAS BEEN REDUCED TO 5 YEARS, NOT 10 YEARS AS MENTIO NED IN THE CERTIFICATE. BASED ON THESE OBSERVATIONS, THE LEARNED CIT(A) UPHELD THE A DDITIONS MADE BY THE LEARNED AO FOR ALL THE ASST YEARS. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE HA S PREFERRED APPEALS FOR ALL THE ASST YEARS BEFORE US AS BELOW:- 1. THAT THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS ) AND THE LD.ASSESSING OFFICER ERRED IN HOLDING THAT APPLICAT ION IN FORM NO.10 AS PER RULE 17 OF I.T. ACT, 1961, WAS NOT FURNISHED TO THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER WITHIN THE TIME ALLOWED U/S 139(1) OF THE I NCOME TAX ACT, 1961, AND ASSESSED THE TOTAL INCOME WITHOUT ALLOWING THE BENEFIT UNDER SECTION 11(2) (1) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961. 2. THAT LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX APPEALS ERRE D IN HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE DIDN'T UTILIZE 85% OF THE INCOME UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 11(2) OF THE INCOME -TAX ACT, 1961 WHEREAS NO SUCH OBSERVATIONS WERE MADE OUT BY THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER IN HIS A SSESSMENT ORDER. 3. THAT THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER ERRED IN COMPUTIN G THE TOTAL INCOME AT RS. 42,83,900/- IN PLACE OF RS. NIL RETURNED BY THE ASSESSEE. 4. THAT AS THE ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INC OME -TAX APPEALS IS ARBITRARY, CAPRICIOUS AND BAD IN LAW, THE SAME SHOU LD BE QUASHED AND YOUR APPELLANT SHOULD BE GIVEN APPROPRIATE RELIEF. 5. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND AN D MODIFY THE ABOVE GROUNDS AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF HE APPEAL. THE ASSESSEE HAD RAISED SIMILAR GROUNDS FOR OTHER A SST YEARS ALSO EXCEPT CHANGE IN FIGURES OF TAXABLE INCOME. 4. THE LEARNED AR ARGUED THAT IT HAS RAISED AN AD DITIONAL GROUND AND VEHEMENTLY PRAYED FOR ADMISSION OF THE SAME. THE ADDITIONAL G ROUND IS AS BELOW:- 'FOR THAT THE APPELLANT BEING 'CHARITABLE INSTITUT ION', ESTABLISHED IN THE YEAR OR BEFORE 1983 AND IN COURSE OF CARRYING OUT ITS OBJECTS FOR THE INTEREST OR THE PUBLIC, HAS INVESTED A SUM OR RS. 2,38,79,935/- IN COLD STORAGE, APPARENT FROM BALANCE SHEET FOR A.Y. 2003 -04, FILED BEFORE THE LD. A.O. AND THE SAID AMOUNT OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN AD JUSTED BY THE LD. ITA NOS.648-652/K/11-B-AM KALIAGANJ REGULATED MARKET COMMITTEE 6 LOWER COURTS AGAINST THE SHORTFALL OF THE APPLICAT ION OF MONEY IN THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL.' 4.1. THE LEARNED AR ARGUED THAT ASSESSEE HAD INVES TED IN COLD STORAGE PLANT IN ASST YEAR 2000-01 AMOUNTING TO RS. 2,38,79,935/- WHICH I F CONSIDERED WOULD RESULT IN EXCESS OF EXPENDITURE OVER INCOME IN THAT YEAR AND THAT WOULD IN TURN BE AVAILABLE TO BE CONSIDERED AS AN APPLICATION OF INCOME IN THE AS ST YEARS 2003-04 TO 2007-08. ACCORDINGLY HE PRAYED FOR ADMISSION OF THIS ADDITIO NAL GROUND. HE REITERATED THE ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BEFORE THE LEARNED CITA AND ARGU ED THAT HAD THE FORM NO. 10 BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE LEARNED AO, THERE WOULD BE N O QUESTION OF MAKING ANY ADDITION. HE ARGUED THAT THE SOLE REASON FOR MAKIN G ADDITION IS NON FILING OF FORM 10 WITHIN THE TIME LIMIT PRESCRIBED IN RULE 17 OF THE IT RULES. HE FURTHER ARGUED THAT THOUGH THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF C IT VS NAGPUR HOTEL OWNERS ASSOCIATION REPORTED IN (2001) 247 ITR 201 ( SC) WAS RENDERED FOR THE ASST YEARS 1974-75 AND 1975-76 AT WHICH POINT OF TIME , AMENDMENT IN RULE 17 PRESCRIBING TIME LIMIT WAS NOT THERE IN THE STATUTE, STILL THE PRINCIPLE LAID DOWN BY THE APEX COURT THAT THE FORM NO. 10 IF MADE AVAILABLE BEFORE THE C OMPLETION OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS SHOULD HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE LEAR NED AO. HE FURTHER PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF CUTTACK TRIBUN AL IN THE CASE OF PARADIP PORT TRUST VS CIT REPORTED IN 141 TTJ 220 ( CTK) WHICH WAS RENDERED FOR ASST YEAR 2007-08 ON THE SIMILAR SET OF FACTS. 4.2. IN RESPONSE TO THIS, THE LEARNED DR ARGUED TH AT SECTION 20 OF THE WEST BENGAL AGRICULTURE PRODUCE MARKETING (REGULATION) ACT, 197 2 WHICH IS PART OF THE PAPER BOOK FILED BY THE ASSESSEE STIPULATES THAT HOW THE FUNDS OF THE ASSESSEE MARKET COMMITTEE MAY BE APPLIED FOR DIFFERENT PURPOSES. HE ARGUED T HAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT ACTUALLY SPENT ANYTHING IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SAID SECTION AS COULD BE EVIDENT FROM THE INCREASE IN FIXED DEPOSITS AND BANK BALANCES FIGURE S BETWEEN 31.3.2003 AND 31.3.2007. FOR THIS PURPOSE, HE REFERRED TO THE BALANCE SHEETS OF THE ASSESSEE ENCLOSED IN PAGES 12 ITA NOS.648-652/K/11-B-AM KALIAGANJ REGULATED MARKET COMMITTEE 7 TO 22 OF THE PAPER BOOK OF THE ASSESSEE. HE FURTHER ARGUED THAT THE ADDITIONAL GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS OF NO RELEVANCE AS IN ASS T YEAR 2000-01, IE THE YEAR IN WHICH INVESTMENT IN COLD STORAGE PLANT WAS MADE, THE ASSE SSEE WAS ENJOYING EXEMPTION U/S 10 OF THE ACT AND ACCORDINGLY WERE NOT OBLIGED TO F ILE ANY RETURNS OF INCOME. HENCE THE SAME CANNOT BE AVAILABLE FOR SET OFF AS APPLICA TION OF INCOME IN FUTURE YEARS. ACCORDINGLY, HE PRAYED FOR NON-INTERFERENCE OF THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A PUBLIC CHARITABLE TRUST ENJOYING REGISTRATION U/S 1 2AA OF THE ACT AND ELIGIBLE TO CLAIM EXEMPTION U/S 11 OF THE ACT SUBJECT TO FULFILLMENT OF CONDITIONS STIPULATED U/S 11 TO 13 OF THE ACT. ADMITTEDLY, THE ACTIVITY CARRIED OUT B Y THE ASSESSEE FALLS UNDER THE FOURTH LIMB OF THEN DEFINITION OF CHARITABLE PURPOSE U/S 2 (15) OF THE ACT NAMELY ADVANCEMENT OF ANY OTHER OBJECT OF GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITY. 5.1. WITH REGARD TO THE ADDITIONAL GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE, WE FIND THAT THE GROUND RAISED THEREON GOES TO THE ROOT OF THE ISSUE AND HENCE THE SAME IS HEREBY ADMITTED FOR ADJUDICATION. 5.2. WE FIND THAT THE LEARNED AR HEAVILY RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF CUTTACK TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF PARADIP PO RT TRUST VS CIT REPORTED IN 141 TTJ 220 (CTK) WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT THE FORM NO. 10 INTIMATIN G THE LEARNED AO FOR SETTING APART THE FUNDS , EVEN IF FILED BEFO RE THE COMPLETION OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THAT DELAY CANNOT BE THE REASON FOR DE NIAL OF EXEMPTION U/S 11 OF THE ACT. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEES CASE AND FACTS BEFORE T HE CUTTACK BENCH ARE SIMILAR. HOWEVER, WE FIND THAT THE POINT OF INVESTMENT IN CO LD STORAGE PLANT OF RS. 2,38,79,935/- POINT WAS RAISED BEFORE US FOR THE FI RST TIME AND WAS NEVER EXAMINED BY THE LEARNED AO. MOREOVER, THE LEARNED AO HAD NOT C ONSIDERED FORM NO.10 FILED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. WE FIND THAT THE ENTIRE DISPUTE WOULD GET SETTLED ONCE FORM NO. 10 IS CONSIDERED BY THE LEARNED AO. IN THESE FACTS ITA NOS.648-652/K/11-B-AM KALIAGANJ REGULATED MARKET COMMITTEE 8 AND CIRCUMSTANCES, TO MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE, WE DEEM IT FIT AND APPROPRIATE, TO SET ASIDE THE ENTIRE ISSUES RAISED IN THE GROUNDS OF AP PEAL, FOR DENOVO ADJUDICATION, TO THE FILE OF THE LEARNED AO , WITH ALL THE ISSUES ON ME RITS LEFT OPEN FOR BOTH THE SIDES AND WITH COMPLETE LIBERTY TO BOTH THE SIDES TO ADJUDICA TE ON ALL THE DOCUMENTS , EVIDENCES AND DECISIONS IN THIS REGARD, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LA W. NEEDLESS TO MENTION THAT THE ASSESSEE BE GIVEN REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING H EARD. THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO DIRECTED TO CO-OPERATE WITH THE SET ASIDE PROCEEDINGS TO RES OLVE THESE DISPUTES AT THE EARLIEST WITHOUT SEEKING UNNECESSARY ADJOURNMENTS. ACCORDI NGLY, THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR ALL THE ASST YEARS ARE ALLOWED FOR STA TISTICAL PURPOSES. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON6-4-2016.. 1.. THE APPELLANT/ASSESSEE: M/S. KALIYAGANJ REGULA TED MARKET COMMITTEE, KARANJHORA P.O RAIGANJ, DIST: UTTAR DINJAPUR. 2 THE RESPONDENT/DEPARTMENT: THE INCOME TAX OFFICER , WARD-1, RAIGANJ. 3 /THE CIT, 4.THE CIT(A ) 5. DR, KOLKATA BENCH 6. GUARD FILE. TRUE COPY, BY ORDER, ASSTT REGISTRAR **PRADIP SPS SD/- (N.V.VASUDEVAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER ) SD/- (M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) DATE: DATE 6 -4 -2016 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO:-