C.I.T. BIKANER vs. KRISHI UPAJ MANDI SAMITI, SURATGARH

PDF · subscribers
ITA/147/2014HC RajasthanRJHC01026885201417 November 20152 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The Tribunal's decision to remand the matter for a fresh adjudication, taking into consideration the provisions of Section 11(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was found to be in accordance with law. This was because the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) had erroneously examined the exemption claim under Section 11(2) instead of Section 11(1)(a). Regarding the issue of setting off excess expenditure in income of earlier years, the Tribunal's finding was based on this Court's judgment. It was acknowledged that the assessee, Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, is a statutory creation and a charitable institution from its inception. Furthermore, exemption was available to the assessee subsequent to the year 2009. Consequently, no just reason was found to interfere with the ITAT's order. The appeal was dismissed.

What were the facts?

The appeal was filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Bikaner, challenging the order dated 25.02.2014 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Jodhpur Bench. The assessee is Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Suratgarh. The ITAT had remanded the matter to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to examine the assessee's claim for exemption under Section 11(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Commissioner (Appeals) had previously examined the claim under Section 11(2) of the Act. The appeal also questioned the ITAT's decision regarding setting off excess expenditure in income of earlier years. The assessee is a statutory creation and considered a charitable institution from inception, with exemption available 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) for examining the assessee's case in light of the exemption available under Section 11(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, when the Commissioner (Appeals) had examined it under Section 11(2)? Assessee's contentions: Not recorded. Revenue's contentions: The ITAT erred in remanding the matter for examination under Section 11(1)(a) instead of upholding the Commissioner (Appeals)'s examination under Section 11(2). 2. Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal erred in setting off excess expenditure in income of earlier years? Assessee's contentions: Not recorded. Revenue's contentions: The ITAT erred in allowing the setting off of excess expenditure in income of earlier years.

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 D.B. INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.147/2014 DATE OF ORDER : 17.11.2015 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR HON'BLE MISS JUSTICE JAISHREE THAKUR Mr. K.K. Bissa, for the appellant ... This appeal is preferred to question correctness of the judgment dated 25.02.2014 passed by learned 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. 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 2 direction to adjudicate the entire matter afresh by taking into consideration the 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 the 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. [JAISHREE THAKUR], J. [GOVIND MATHUR], J. Sanjay

More judgments on Section 11(1)(a)

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

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →