C.I.T. BIKANER vs. KRISHI UPAJ MANDI SAMITI PADAMPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA/148/2014HC RajasthanRJHC01026888201401 September 20152 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 assessee had claimed exemption under Section 11(1)(a), but the CIT(A) examined it under Section 11(2). The ITAT directed adjudication afresh considering Section 11(1)(a). Regarding the second issue, the High Court found that the ITAT's finding was based on a previous judgment of the High Court. It was noted that the assessee is a statutory creation and a charitable institution from inception, and subsequent to 2009, the exemption allowed by ITAT is available. Consequently, the High Court found no just reason to interfere and dismissed the appeal, holding no subsequent question of law was involved. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The appeal was filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT), Bikaner, challenging the judgment dated 25.02.2014 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Jodhpur Bench. The assessee is Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Padampur. The ITAT had remanded the matter to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to examine the assessee's case in light of exemption available under Section 11(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The CIT's argument was that the ITAT erred in remanding the matter and also erred in setting off excess expenditure in income of earlier years. The High Court reviewed the ITAT's judgment.

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 exemption available as per Section 11(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961? (Question of law and fact, turning on Section 11(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961). - Assessee's contention: Not recorded. - Revenue's contention: The ITAT erred in remanding the matter. 2. Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal erred while setting off excess expenditure in income of earlier years? (Question of law and fact, turning on provisions related to carry forward of losses and set off of expenditure). - Assessee's contention: Not recorded. - Revenue's contention: The ITAT erred in setting off 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

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR. *** D.B. INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.148/2014 (C.I.T., BIKANER V/S KRISHI UPAJ MANDI SAMITI, PADAMPUR ) ***
01.09.

2015

HON'BLE MR. GOVIND MATHUR,J HON'BLE MISS JAISHREE THAKUR ,J

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 (i) (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(i)(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

2 of 1961. The Tribunal remanded the matter with 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 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 avaialble 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. Anil Singh

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 →