ITO, Ongole V. Agricultural Market Committee, Addanki, Prakasam

ITA 905/HYD/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 135 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6086 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 40 year(s) 11 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-12-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 01-01-1970
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: K E SUNIL BABU
• Keywords: Retrospective amendment; Set aside

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH B, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI N.R.S.GANESAN,JUDICIAL M EMBER AND SHRI AKBER BASHA, ACCOUNTANT MEM BER ITA NO. ASSESSMENT YEAR APPELLANT RESPONDENT 905/HYD/2010 2006-07 INCOME-TAX OFFICER,WARD-1, ONGOLE. AGRICULTURAL MARKET COMMITTEE, ADDANKI ( PAN-AAALA 0248 C) 906/HYD/2010 2006-07 INCOME-TAX OFFICER,WARD-2, ONGOLE. AGRICULTURAL MARKET COMMITTEE, DARSI ( PAN-AAALA 0243 R) 907/HYD/2010 2006-07 INCOME-TAX OFFICER,WARD-1, ONGOLE. AGRICULTURAL MARKET COMMITTEE, MARTUR ( PAN-AAALA 0238 L) 908/HYD/2010 2006-07 INCOME-TAX OFFICER,WARD-2, ONGOLE. AGRICULTURAL MARKET COMMITTEE, CUMBUM ( PAN-AAALA 0244 J) 909/HYD/2010 2006-07 INCOME-TAX OFFICER,WARD-2, ONGOLE. AGRICULTURAL MARKET COMMITTEE, GIDDALUR ( PAN-AAALA 0241 P) APPELLANTS BY : SHRI K.E.SUNIL BABU RESPONDENT BY : NONE ITA.NO.905 TO 909/HY D/2010 AGRICULTURAL MARKET COMMITTEE, ADDANKI AND 4 OTHERS 2 O R D E R PER BENCH: THESE APPEALS BY THE REVENUE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST SIM ILAR BUT SEPARATE ORDERS OF THE CIT(A) GUNTUR DATED 26.3.2010 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. SINCE COMMON AND IDENTICAL ISSUES AR E INVOLVED IN THESE APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE, THESE ARE HEARD TOGETHER AND DISPOSED OFF BY THIS COMBINED ORDER FOR T HE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 2. DESPITE NOTICE, AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF APPEALS BY THIS TRIBUNAL ON 9.12.2010, NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF T HE ASSESSEES. THERE IS NOT EVEN AN ADJOURNMENT PETITION RECEIVED FR OM THE ASSESSEES. WE ACCORDINGLY PROCEED TO DISPOSE OFF THESE APPE ALS OF THE REVENUE, EX-PARTE-QUA THE ASSESSEE. 3. EFFECTIVE GROUNDS OF THE REVENUE, COMMON IN ALL T HESE APPEALS, READ AS FOLLOWS- '1. THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IS ERRONEOUS BOTH IN LA W AND IN FACTS OF THE CASE. 2. THE CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACT THAT T HE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 10(26AAB) HAS BEEN INTRODUCED BY THE FINANCE ACT W.E.F. 01.04.2009 AND THERE IS NO SPECI FIC MENTION IN THE FINANCE ACT THAT THE NEWLY INTRODUCED SECTIO N HAS RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT. 3. THE CIT(A) HAS NOT CONSIDERED THE DECISION OF THE H ON'BLE SUPREM E COURT IN THE CASE OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKET COMMITTEE, NARELA VS. CIT 305 ITR 1(2008) WHEREIN I T WAS HELD THAT AFTER INSERTION OF EXPLANATION TO SECTION 10(20) BY THE FINANCE ACT, 2002 W.E.F.01/04/2003 THE AMC IS N EITHER A MUNICIPAL COM MITTEE NOR A DISTRICT BOARD AND IT IS NOT ENTITLED TO EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 10(20) OF THE I.T.ACT. 4. THE LEARNED CIT(A) OUGHT NOT TO HAVE HELD THAT INC OME OF THE AMCS ARE EXEMPT FOR THE ASST. YR. 2007-08 FOLLOWING THE ITA.NO.905 TO 909/HY D/2010 AGRICULTURAL MARKET COMMITTEE, ADDANKI AND 4 OTHERS 3 DECISION OF THE I.TAT. VIZAG BENCH KEEPING IN VIEW OF THE VARIOUS DECISIONS OF THE HON'BLE APEX COURT IN RESP ECT OF ISSUE OF EFFECT OF AMENDMENTS TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE AC T/INSERTION OF NEW PROVISIONS: (A) HINTENDER VISHNU THAKUR VS. STATE OF MAHARASHT RA (1994) 4 SC 602) (B) SMT.DAYAWATI V/S. INDERJIT (AIR 1966 SC 1423 I N PARA 10) (C) GARIKAPATI VEERAIAH V/S N.SUBBAIAH CHOWADHARY (AIR 157 SC 540). ' 3. WE HAVE HEARD THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESEN TATIVE AND PERUSED THE IMPUGNED ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORIT IES AND OTHER MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT THE ISSUES R AISED IN THESE APPEALS ARE SQUARELY COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE REVENUE BY THE ORDER OF THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF A GRICULTURE MARKET COMMITTEE, MADHIRA AND OTHERS IN ITA NO.542/HYD/2009 AND OTHERS DATED 26.3.2010 WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT THE ASSESSEES A RE NOT ELIGIBLE FOR EXEMPTION U/S 10(26AAB) OF THE ACT, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WHEREIN THEY HAVE FOLLOWED THE JUDGEMENT OF THE APEX COURT IN AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKET COM MITTEE, NARELA VS. CIT & OTHERS (305 ITR 1) (SC). FOR THE DETAILED REASONING GIVEN IN OUR ORDER DATED 26.3.2010 IN THE CASE OF AGRICULTUAL M ARKET COMMITTEE, MADHIRA AND OTHERS, WE HOLD THAT THE ASSE SSEE TRUSTS ARE NOT ELIGIBLE FOR EXEMPTION U/S 10(26AAB) OF THE ACT F OR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. ACCORDINGLY, IMPUGNED ORDERS OF THE CI T(A) ARE SET ASIDE AND THE ORDERS OF ASSESSMENT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER A RE RESTORED. CONSEQUENTLY, GROUNDS OF THE REVENUE IN TH ESE APPEALS ARE ALLOWED. ITA.NO.905 TO 909/HY D/2010 AGRICULTURAL MARKET COMMITTEE, ADDANKI AND 4 OTHERS 4 4. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE FIVE APPEALS OF THE REVEN UE ARE ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 9TH DECEMBER, 2010. SD/- S D/- (N.R.S.GANESAN) (AKBER BASHA) JUDICIAL MEMBER. ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. DT/- 9TH DECEMBER, 2010 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. AGRICULTURAL MARKET COMMITTEE, ADDANKI, PRAKASAM D ISTRICT. 2. AGRICULTURAL MARKET COMMITTEE, DARSI, PRAKASAM DIST RICT. 3. AGRICULTURAL MARKET COMMITTEE, MARTUR, PRAKASAM DI STRICT. 4. AGRICULTURAL MARKET COMMITTEE, CUMBUM, PRAKASAM DI STRICT. 5. AGRICULTURAL MARKET COMMITTEE, GIDDALUR, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. 6. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, ONGOLE 7. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, ONGOLE 8. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS), GUNTUR. 9. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, GUNTUR. 10. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE ITAT, HYDERABAD. B.V.S.