COMMISSIOENR OF INCOME-TAX, HISAR vs. MARKET COMMITTE, DABWALI

ITA/31/2011HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01095642201107 April 2011Author: MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL,MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What were the facts?

The Revenue, the Commissioner of Income Tax, filed an appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Chandigarh. The ITAT's order, dated May 26, 2010, pertained to the assessment year 2007-08. The appeal challenged the ITAT's decision to allow an expenditure of Rs. 60,62,461/- claimed by the assessee, Market Committee, Dabwali. This expenditure was stated to be a contribution to the HSAM Board under a statutory obligation arising from Section 27 of the Punjab Agricultural Produce Market Act, 1961. The Revenue contended that the assessee failed to produce evidence to prove the actual incurrence of this expenditure and questioned whether such a contribution could be considered an application of income for charitable purposes as defined in Section 2(15) of the Income-tax Act.

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. The Court noted that the Revenue's counsel fairly stated that the matter was covered against the Revenue by a previous judgment of the same Court. This judgment was dated July 5, 2010, in I.T.A. No. 151 of 2010, in the case of CIT v. Market Committee, Narwana. The principle established in that precedent would govern the present appeal, leading to the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal. The specific findings of the ITAT or the detailed reasoning for allowing the expenditure were not elaborated upon in this High Court judgment, as the appeal was decided on the basis of the binding precedent. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT was justified in holding that the expenditure of Rs. 60,62,461/- claimed to have been contributed to HSAM Board under statutory obligation by virtue of Section 27 of the Punjab Agricultural Produce Market Act, 1961 is allowable, without appreciating that no evidence could be produced by the assessee to prove that such expenditure was actually incurred? (Question of law and fact, turning on Section 27 of the Punjab Agricultural Produce Market Act, 1961 and Section 2(15) of the Income-tax Act). Assessee's contentions: Not recorded. Revenue's contentions: The expenditure of Rs. 60,62,461/- claimed as a contribution to HSAM Board under statutory obligation is not allowable because the assessee failed to produce evidence to prove that such expenditure was actually incurred. Furthermore, such a contribution cannot be treated as falling within the ambit of application of income for charitable purposes as defined in Section 2(15) of the Income-tax Act.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260-A,Section 2(15)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

Date of decision: 7.4.2011 The Commissioner of Income Tax. -----Appellant. Vs. Market Committee, Dabwali. -----Respondent. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL Present:- Mr. Yogesh Putney, Sr. Standing Counsel for the appellant. --- ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J.

This appeal has been preferred by the revenue under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “the Act”) against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh dated 26.5.2010 in ITA No.407/Chd./2010 for the assessment year 2007-08 claiming following substantial question of law:- “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned ITAT was justified in holding that the expenditure of Rs.60,62,461/- claimed to have been contributed to HSAM Board under statutory obligation by virtue of Section 27 of the Punjab Agricultural Produce Market Act, 1961 is allowable without appreciating that no evidence could be produced by the assessee to prove that such expenditure was actually incurred and whether such contribution can be treated to fall within

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 260-A

All 2,347 judgments and leading authorities on Section 260-A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →