DY. CIT,3(1), BHOPAL vs. M/S KRISHI UPAJ MANDI SAMITI, MANDI COMPOUND, SEHORE
What did the Tribunal hold?
The CIT(A) held that even if the excess depreciation claim was disallowed, the assessee's income would still be Nil because its application of funds for charitable purposes exceeded 85% of its total receipts. The Tribunal upheld this decision.
What were the facts?
The assessee, M/s. Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, declared Nil income. The Assessing Officer (AO) made an addition of Rs. 4,54,813/- for excess depreciation claim during reassessment. The assessee appealed to the CIT(A).
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) was justified in directing the AO to assess the income at Nil despite an addition for excess depreciation, considering the assessee's charitable status and application of funds.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, INDORE BENCH, INDORE
Before: SHRI KUL BHARAT & SHRI MANISH BORAD
आदेश / O R D E R
PER KUL BHARAT, J.M: This appeal by the revenue is directed against order of the CIT(A)-2, Bhopal dated 19.9.2017 pertaining to the
[ ] [M/s. Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Sehore] assessment year 2008-09. The only effective ground in the present appeal i.e. Ground No.1 reads as under:
“The Ld. CIT has erred in facts and circumstances of the case by directing the Assessing Officer to assess the income of the appellant at Rs.Nil.” 2. At the time of hearing, no one appeared on behalf of the assessee. It is noticed that there was no representation for the last 3 hearings. It is also found that notice of hearing was duly served upon the assessee. Therefore, the appeals are taken up for hearing in the absence of the assessee. The facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the assessee filed a return of income declaring total income at Rs.Nil. The assessment was completed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called as ‘the Act’) on 31.12.2010 and income was assessed at Rs.14,27,380/-. Subsequently, the case was reopened u/s 147 of the Act and the assessment was framed u/s 147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act on 22.3.2016. The A.O. while making reassessment made addition of Rs.4,54,813/- in 2
[ ] [M/s. Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Sehore] respect of excess claim of depreciation. Aggrieved by this, the assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A).
Ld. D.R. supported the order of the A.O. and submitted that Ld. CIT(A) was not justified to delete the addition.
We have head the Ld. D.R. and perused the materials available one record. The Ld. CIT(A) after considering the facts and the position of law, decided the issue under para- 7, which reads as under:
“7. All the grounds of appeal are being taken up together. It is seen that the appellant has obtained registration u/s 12AA of the Act w.e.f. 1.4.2003. In the case of original assessment u/s 143(3) dated 31.12.2010, an appeal was preferred by the appellant against the additions made by the A.O. in the assessment order and the Ld. CIT(A)-1, Bhopal had decided that as the expenditure after addition the disallowed expenses is more than 85% of the total receipts of the appellant, hence there was no income liable for tax. As per the appeal order of the Ld. CIT(A)-1, Bhopal reproduced above, it was clearly mentioned that the application of funds of Rs.5,29,13,937/- was in excess of 85% of the total receipts of the appellant at Rs.5,17,82,032/-. Now even if, the total amount of Rs.4,54,813/- added by the A.O. is not considered as application of funds for charitable purpose, the balance amount of application of funds would be Rs.5,24,59,124/- (Rs.5,29,13,937 – Rs.4,54,813), which is in excess of 85% of the total receipts of the appellant. Thus, there was no income liable for tax during the year under consideration and the income had to be assessed at Rs.Nil. The A.O. is therefore, directed to assess the income of the appellant for the year under consideration at Rs.Nil.”
[ ] [M/s. Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Sehore] 5. The basis of deleting the addition by the Ld. CIT(A) is that even the excess claim of depreciation is disallowed, in that event also, the amount would not be taxable as the assessee is registered u/s 12AA of the Act. We have given thoughtful consideration to this reasoning of the Ld. CIT(A).
The revenue could not rebut the fact that even if it is disallowed, the income would not be taxable. Therefore, we do not see any reason to interfere in the finding of the Ld. CIT(A). The ground raised by the revenue is dismissed.
In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed.
Order was pronounced in the open court on 08 .05.2019.
More judgments on Section 147
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Tarunaben Maganlal Bhut, Navagam vs ITO Ward 2(2)(1), RajkotITA 673/RJT/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Ankil Jagdishchandra Kholwadwala vs. Union Of INDIA And AnrBombay · 22 Oct 2026
- Imtiyaz Shaikh Z Chorlekar vs. Salman ShaikhBombay · 21 Oct 2026
- S. Nithyananda vs. State Of KarnatakaKarnataka · 17 Oct 2026
- Ritik vs. State Of M.P.Madhya Pradesh · 16 Oct 2026
- Venkadeswara Grill Works vs. The Joint Commissioner (St)Madras · 16 Oct 2026