DIT (Exemptions), Hyderabad, Hyderabad V. Agricultural Market Committee, Hyderabad

MA 169/HYD/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2687 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 02-01-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 18-11-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: D SUDHAKAR RAO
• Assessee Lawyers: RAVI SESHAGIRI RAO
• Section: 12A

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES B : HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI B. RAMAKOTAIAH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER M.A.NO. 169/HYD/2014 ARISING OUT OF ITA.NO.400/HYD/2014 DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), HYDERABAD VS. AGRICULTURAL MARKET COMMITTEE, ACHAMPET, MAHABUBNAGAR DISTRICT., PAN: AACTA 1522 B FOR DEPARTMENT : SHRI D. SUDHAKAR RAO, CIT FOR ASSESSEE : SHRI RAVI SESHAGIRI RAO, AR DATE OF HEARING : 12-12-2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 02-01-2015 ORDER PER B. RAMAKOTAIAH, A.M. : THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION IS PREFERRED BY DI RECTOR OF INCOME TAX-(EXEMPTIONS), HYDERABAD AGAINST THE O RDER OF THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (ITAT) B BENCH IN ASSESSEES CASE IN ITA NO.400/HYD/2014 DATED 05-09- 2014. THE ITAT WHILE DIRECTING THE REGISTRATION TO BE GRA NTED TO THE ASSESSEE OBSERVED AS UNDER IN PARA NO.8: 8. IN THIS CONTEXT, WE HAVE TO OBSERVE THAT LEARNE D DIT(E) IS WHOLLY BENT ON REFUSING REGISTRATION ON VARIOUS EXT RANEOUS CONSIDERATIONS IN ALMOST ALL CASES WHICH HAVE COME UP BEFORE HIM. THIS FORUM HAS BEEN OBSERVING REGULARLY AND AL SO SOME TIMES PASSING ADVERSE REMARKS THAT DIT(E) WAS EXCEE DING HIS 2 MA.NO.169/HYD/2014 IN ITA NO.400/HYD/2014 . JURISDICTION AND NOT FOLLOWING THE JURISDICTIONAL H IGH COURT DIRECTION/ITAT ORDERS WHILE CONSIDERING THE ISSUES. EVEN THOUGH ITAT DIRECTS THE DIT(E) TO GRANT REGISTRATIO N IN MANY CASES, HE IS MAKING SOME OTHER CONDITIONS APPLICABL E WHICH ARE BEYOND HIS PURVIEW. THIS FORUM CANNOT IGNORE SUCH B LATANT VIOLATIONS OF JUDICIAL PROPRIETARY. EVEN THOUGH THE RE IS A DIRECT JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF A MCS FOR GRANT OF REGISTRATION UNDER SECTION 12A OF THE ACT, LEARNED DIT(E) TOOK RECOURSE TO THE JUDGMENT OF ANOTHER HIG H COURT DECISION GIVEN IN THE CONTEXT OF SEC.10(23C) SO AS TO DENY THE REGISTRATION UNDER SECTION 12A WHICH, IN FACT, WAS GRANTED TO THE SAID SEED CERTIFICATION AGENCY BY THE DIT(E) AS CAN BE SEEN FROM THE FACTS OF THAT CASE. THIS MAY CALL FOR CONT EMPT OF COURT, BUT SINCE THAT IS NOT BEFORE US, WE CAN ONLY OBSERV E THAT LEARNED DIT(E) SHOULD BE VISITED WITH COSTS FOR MAK ING ASSESSEE UNNECESSARILY COMING UP IN APPEAL. SINCE A SSESSEE PAID RS.500 AS APPEAL FEES AND EMPLOYED COUNSEL FOR REPRESENTING THE CASE BEFORE THE ITAT, WE WILL LEVY A COST OF RS.2000 (RUPEES TWO THOUSAND ONLY) ON DIT(E), WHICH SHOULD BE RECOVERED FROM HIS SALARY AND PAID TO THE ASSESS EE. WITH THESE OBSERVATIONS, ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALLOWED, W ITH COSTS TO BE PAID BY THE DIT(E). THE DIT(E) HAS PREFERRED THE PRESENT MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION REQUESTING THAT THE COST LEVIED SHOULD BE WITHDRAWN . 2. THE DIT(E) SUBMITS IN WRITING AS UNDER: 4. IN THIS CONTEXT, IT IS FURTHER RESPECTFULLY SUBM ITTED THAT THE SAID DECISION OF THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH CO URT IN THE CASE OF ANDHRA PRADESH STATE SEED CERTIFICATION AGE NCY, WHICH WAS SUBSEQUENT TO THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. AG RICULTURAL 3 MA.NO.169/HYD/2014 IN ITA NO.400/HYD/2014 . MARKET COMMITTEE (2011) 336 ITR 641 (AP), HAS BEEN FOLLOWED EARLIER BY THE DIT(E) IN HIS ORDER DATED 2 8.03.2013 FOR DENIAL OF REGISTRATION U/S.L2A IN THE CASE OF A GRICULTURAL MARKET COMMITTEE, S ARANGA PUR, ADILABAD DISTRICT, AND ON APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE SAID ORDER OF THE DIT(E) BEFORE THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL, THE HON'BLE ITA T,'B' BENCH VIDE ORDER IN ITA NO.903/HYD/2013 DATED 17.09.2013 DIRECTED TO GRANT REG ISTRATION TO THE ASSESSEE, WITHOUT IMPOSING ANY COST ON THE DIT(E). LATER, ON APPEAL FILED BY THE DEPARTMENT BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COU RT, AGAINST THE SAID ORDER OF THE HON'BLE ITAT, THE HON 'BLE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF T ELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, VIDE THEIR ORDER DATED 11.06.2014 IN ITTA NO.346 OF 2014, DISMISSED THE SAID APPEAL OF THE DEPARTMENT, BUT HOWEVER, WITHOUT PERCEIVING ANY CONTEMPT O COURT AND WITHOUT TAKING ANY ADVERSE VIEW AND WITHOUT IMPOSING ANY COST ON THE D IT(E). IN THAT ORDER DATED 11.06.2014, THE HON 7 BLE HIGH COURT NOTED THAT THE LD. TRIBUNAL HAS FOLLOWED THE JUDGEM ENT OF THIS COURT ON AN IDENTICAL ISSUE AND FURTHER OBSERV ED THAT THE AFORESAID JUDGEMENT OF THIS COURT HAS NO APPLIC ATION TO THE FACTS OF THIS CASE. A COPY OF THE SAID ORDER OF THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IS ENCLOSED HEREWITH AS ' ANNEXURE- A' FOR KIND PERUSAL OF THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL. 5. FURTHER, LATER, ON ANOTHER APPEAL FILED BY THE DEPARTMENT, BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT, AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE HON'BLE ITAT IN ITA. NO.903/HYD/2013 D ATED 17.09.2013, INVOLVING IDENTICAL ISSUE AND DECIDING THE APPEAL IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE, BUT WITHOUT IMPOS ING ANY COST ON THE DIT(E), IN THE CASE OF AGRICULTURAL MAR KET COMMITTEE, KUBEER, ADILABAD DISTRICT, WHEREIN ALSO REGISTRATION HAS BEEN DENIED U/S.12A BY THE DIT(E) FOLLOWING THE SAID ORDER OF THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIO NAL HIGH 4 MA.NO.169/HYD/2014 IN ITA NO.400/HYD/2014 . COURT IN THE CASE OF ANDHRA PRADESH STATE SEED CERTIFICATION AGENCY (SUPRA), THE HON'BLE HIGH COUR T OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, VIDE THEIR ORDER DATED 06.08.2014 IN ITTA NO.545 OF 2014, DISMISSED THE SA ID APPEAL OF THE DEPARTMENT, BUT HOWEVER, WITHOUT PERC EIVING ANY CONTEMPT OF COURT AND WITHOUT TAKING ANY ADVERSE VIEW AND WITHOUT IMPOSING ANY COST ON THE D IT(E). A COPY OF THE SAID ORDER DATED 06.08.2014 OF THE HO N'BLE HIGH COURT IS ENCLOSED HEREWITH AS 'ANNEXURE-B' FOR KIND PERUSAL OF THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL. 6. IT IS HUMBLY SUBMITTED THAT, HAD THOSE DECISIONS OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF THOSE TWO AMCS BE EN BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE HON'BLE ITAT AT THE TI ME OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE A MC, THE HON'BLE ITAT MIGHT NOT HAVE PROCEEDED TO LEVY ANY C OST ON THE DIT(E), IN THE APPELLATE ORDER DATED 05.09.2014 IN ITA NO.400/HYD/2014 PASSED IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE AMC. HOWEVER, WHEN THE SAID TWO DECISIONS OF THE HO N'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT, DISMISSING THE APPEALS F ILED BY THE DIT(E), BUT WITHOUT LEVYING ANY COST ON THE DIT (E), WERE EXISTING AT THE RELEVANT TIME, THE FIRST ONE DATED 11.06.2014 IN AMC, SARANGAPUR, PRIOR TO HEARING OF THE APPEAL BY THE HON'BLE ITAT ON 21.07.2014 IN THE CASE OF THE ASSES SEE AMC ( AVAILABLE IN THE WEBSITE OF HON'BLE HIGH COUR T FROM WHERE IT WAS FIRST DOWNLOADED ON 18.06.2014 (COPY ENCLOSED AS ANNEXURE C) AND THE SECOND ONE DATED 06.08.2014 IN AMC, KUBEER, PRIOR TO THE PRONOUNCEME NT OF JUDGEMENT ON 05.09.2014 IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE AMC, WHICH DECISIONS, IT IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED THAT SHOULD BE FOLLOWED IN SPIRIT, IT MAY KINDLY BE NOTICED THAT A MISTAKE HAS BEEN COMMITTED IN THE PRESENT ORDER DATED 05.09 .2014 OF THE HONBLE ITAT IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE AMC IN 5 MA.NO.169/HYD/2014 IN ITA NO.400/HYD/2014 . LEVYING SUCH COST ON THE DIT(E). 7. UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE EXPLAINED AB OVE, HONESTLY AND TRUTHFULLY, IT IS EARNESTLY REQUESTED THAT THE HON'BLE ITAT MAY KINDLY CONSIDER TO RECALL THEIR SA ID ORDER DATED 05.09.2014 IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE AMC AN D SUITABLY AMEND THE SAID PARA 8 OF THAT ORDER, BY WITHDRAWING SUCH COST IMPOSED ON THE DIT(E), HYDERA BAD. 3. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (DR) REI TERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE DIT(E) IN THE APPLICATION. THE ASSESSEES COUNSEL, HOWEVER, HAS NO OBJECTION IF CO ST IS WITHDRAWN. 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE ISSUE AND PERUSED THE REC ORD. AS CAN BE SEEN FROM THE ORDER OF ITAT AND THE SUBMI SSIONS MADE BY THE DIT(E), THE OBSERVATIONS MADE BY THE IT AT ARE JUSTIFIED. IN FACT, THE DIT(E) ADMITS THAT ON A SI MILAR CASE AS EARLY AS 17-09-2013, THE ITAT GRANTED REGISTRATION TO THE AMC IN ITA NO.903/HYD/2013. IN SPITE OF HAVING AN ORD ER FROM THE ITAT, THERE IS NO MENTION OF THE SAME IN THE ORDER PASSED BY THE DIT(E) IN THE PRESENT ASSESSEES CASE ON 31-01- 2014. HAD DIT(E) MENTIONED THIS FACT THAT ITAT HAS ALREADY DI RECTED DIT(E) TO GRANT REGISTRATION AND DIT(E) WAS IN APPE AL BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT AT THE RELEVANT POINT OF TIME, I TAT WOULD NOT HAVE LEVIED COST. IN SPITE OF HAVING A DECISI ON OF THE ITAT ON RECORD, WITHOUT EVEN MENTIONING THE SAME IN THE ORDER AND ALSO WITHOUT MENTIONING THAT REVENUE PREFERRED APPE AL BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT, THE DIT(E) PASSED THE ORDER RELYING ON A JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT NOT APPLICABLE ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE. IN VIEW OF THIS, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE 6 MA.NO.169/HYD/2014 IN ITA NO.400/HYD/2014 . COMMENTS PASSED AGAINST THE DIT(E) ARE JUSTIFIED, H OWEVER, CONSIDERING THE REQUEST MADE BY THE DIT(E), WE WITH DRAW THE COST LEVIED ON THE DIT(E). TO THAT EXTENT, THE ORDE R DT.05-09- 2014 IN THE ASSESSEES CASE STANDS MODIFIED. 5. IN THE RESULT, MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION IS ALL OWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 02-01-2015. SD/- SD/- (SAKTIJIT DEY) (B. RAMAKOTAIAH) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED 2 ND JANUARY, 2015. TNMM COPY TO : 1. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), HYDERABAD 2. AGRICULTURAL MARKET COMMITTEE, ACHAMPET, MAHABUB NAGAR DIST., C/O. SHRI S.RAMA RAO, ADVOCATE, FLAT NO.102, SHRIYAS ELEGANCE, H.NO.3-6-643, ST.NO.9, HIMAYATNAGAR, HYDE RABAD 3. ADIT (EXEMPTIONS), HYDERABAD 4. D.R. ITAT, HYDERABAD.