C.I.T., BIKANER vs. K.U.M.S. GAJSINGHPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA/193/2014HC RajasthanRJHC01028104201412 April 20162 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the remand made by the ITAT was in accordance with law. The Tribunal directed the adjudication of the matter afresh considering Section 11(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which was appropriate as the CIT(A) had incorrectly examined the exemption under Section 11(2). Regarding the second issue, the Court found that the ITAT's finding on setting off excess expenditure in earlier years was based on this Court's judgment. The Court acknowledged that the Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti is a statutory creation and a charitable institution, and that exemption is available to it post-2009. Therefore, the Court found no just reason to interfere with the ITAT's decision. The appeal was dismissed.

What were the facts?

The appeal is filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Bikaner, against the judgment dated May 19, 2014, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Jodhpur Bench. The assessee is Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Gajsinghpur. The ITAT had remanded the matter to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to re-examine the assessee's claim for exemption under Section 11(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee is a statutory creation and considered a charitable institution. The ITAT's decision to remand was based on the fact that the CIT(A) had examined the exemption under Section 11(2) instead of Section 11(1)(a). The High Court also noted that exemption is available to the assessee subsequent to 2009.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal erred in remanding the matter to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to examine the assessee's case in light of the exemption available under Section 11(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, when the CIT(A) had examined it under Section 11(2)? - Assessee's contention: Not recorded. - Revenue's contention: The ITAT erred in remanding the matter. 2. Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal erred in setting off excess expenditure in income of earlier years? - Assessee's contention: Not recorded. - Revenue's contention: The ITAT erred in setting off excess expenditure.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 11(1)(a),Section 11(2)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR J U D G M E N T D.B. INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.193/2014 DATE OF JUDGMENT :: 12.04.2016 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH CHANDRA SHARMA Mr. KK Bissa, for the appellant ... BY THE COURT : This appeal is preferred to question correctness of the judgment dated 19.5.2014 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur. The argument advanced by learned counsel for the appellant is two-fold :- (1) that the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal erred while remanding the matter to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to examine case of assessee in light of exemption available as per Section 11(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and (2) that the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal erred while setting off excess expenditure in income of earlier years. We have examined the judgment impugned.

2 So far as the first issue is concerned, it is relevant to note that the assessee claimed exemption under Section 11(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 but the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) examined the same in light of provisions of Section 11(2) of the Act of 1961. The Tribunal remanded the matter with a direction to adjudicate the entire matter afresh by taking into consideration provisions of Section 11(1)(a) of the Act of 1961. In our considered opinion the remand made by the Tribunal is in accordance with law. The other issue with regard to setting off of excess expenditure in income of earlier years is concerned, we are of the opinion that the finding arrived is based upon the judgment of this Court. It is not in dispute that the Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, the assessee, is creation of a statute and from inception that is a charitable institution. It is also pertinent to notice that subsequent to the year 2009 the exemption as allowed by ITAT is available to the assessee. In view of it, we do not find any just reason to interfere in the instant matter being having no subsequent question of law involved.

The appeal is dismissed accordingly. [KAILASH CHANDRA SHARMA], J. [GOVIND MATHUR], J. Sanjay

More judgments on Section 11(1)(a)

All 553 judgments and leading authorities on Section 11(1)(a) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →