INCOME TAX OFFICER, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT vs. REGULATED MARKET COMMITTEE, ATTABIRA, ATTABIRA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 285/CTK/2023Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack28 November 2023AY 2018-193 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that the assessee, being an agricultural produce market committee, was eligible for exemption under Section 10(26AAB). The Tribunal also noted the CIT(A)'s recognition of technical glitches faced by the assessee.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s order which deleted additions made by the AO on account of unexplained investment and interest. The additions were made as the assessee did not respond to the AO's notices.

What were the issues?

Whether the income of an agricultural produce market committee is exempt under Section 10(26AAB) and if the CIT(A) correctly deleted additions made due to non-response to notices.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144,Section 144B,Section 10(26AAB)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, CUTTACK BENCH CUTTACK

Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL

Hearing: 28/11/2023Pronounced: 28/11/2023

O R D E R

Per Bench : This is an appeal filed by the revenue against the order of the ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated 28.07.2023, passed in ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022-23/1054708362(1) for the assessment year 2018-2019. 2. At the time of hearing, Shri Sudam Panigrahi, Accountant of the assessee-committee submitted an adjournment application, which was taken back by him. Subsequently, an adjournment application from the Secretary of the assessee through post addressing to the Member s, ITAT Cuttack, was received after the order was pronounced in the open court and, thus, the same is not taken into consideration.

3.

It was the submission that the ld. CIT-DR that the assessment in the case of the assessee came to be completed u/s.147 r.w.s144 r.w.s144B of the Act on 01.03.2023, wherein the AO had made addition representing the fresh time deposit as unexplained investment. Further the interest received on the said fresh time deposit was also treated as unexplained money. It was submitted that addition has been made as the assessee has not responded to the notice issued by the AO. It was the submission that on appeal, the ld. CIT(A) had deleted the additions by holding that the income of the assessee was exempt u/s.10(26AAB) of the Act as the assessee is an agricultural produce market committee constituted under Orissa Agricultural Produce Market Act, 1956 for the purpose of regulating the marketing of agricultural produce. It was the submission that the order of the ld. CIT(A) is liable to be reversed and that of the AO be restored.

4.

In reply, Shri Sudam Panigrahi, the accountant of the assessee committee vehemently supported the order of the ld. CIT(A).

5.

We have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the order of the ld. CIT(A) clearly shows that the ld. CIT(A) has considered the facts that the assessee is an agricultural produce market committee constituted under Orissa Agricultural Produce Market Act, 1956 for the purpose of regulating the marketing of agricultural produce and in view of the same, the income of the assessee is eligible for exemption u/s.10(26AAB) of the Act. This finding of the ld. CIT(A) has not been dislodged by the revenue. Further, admittedly, the ld. CIT(A) has taken into consideration the fact that the assessee was facing technical glitches in responding to the notices issued by the AO along with supporting documents to the

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →