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

PDF · subscribers
ITA/40/2013HC RajasthanRJHC01018560201318 February 2015Author: GOVIND MATHUR,P.K. LOHRA2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The Tribunal held that the remand made by the ITAT was in accordance with law. The reasoning was that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) had examined the exemption claim under Section 11(2) of the Act, whereas the assessee had claimed it under Section 11(1)(a). Therefore, remanding the matter for adjudication afresh, taking into consideration Section 11(1)(a), was deemed appropriate. Regarding the second issue, the Tribunal found that the ITAT's finding on setting off excess expenditure against income of earlier years was based on a judgment of the High Court. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee is a statutory creation and a charitable institution, and that exemption is available to it post-2009. Consequently, the Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the ITAT's decision on this point. The appeal was dismissed.

What were the facts?

The Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT), Bikaner, is the appellant, and Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti (F&V), Sri Ganganagar, is the assessee. The appeal challenges a judgment dated December 18, 2012, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Jodhpur Bench. 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 ITAT also addressed the issue of setting off excess expenditure against income from earlier years. The assessee is stated to be a creation of statute and a charitable institution from inception. The judgment notes that exemption, as allowed by the ITAT, is available to the assessee subsequent to the year 2009.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the ITAT 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? The assessee argued that the exemption should be considered under Section 11(1)(a), while the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) had examined it under Section 11(2). The revenue's contention is that the remand was erroneous. 2. Whether the ITAT erred in setting off excess expenditure in the income of earlier years? The revenue's argument is that this action was incorrect. The judgment does not record specific arguments from the assessee on this point, but it is implied that the ITAT's decision was in favor of the assessee.

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.40/2013 Commissioner of Income Tax, Bikaner Vs. Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti (F&V), Sri Ganganagar DATE OF ORDER :: 18.2.2015 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. LOHRA Mr. K.K. Bissa, for the appellant ... This appeal is preferred to question correctness of the judgment dated 18.12.2012 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 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 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. [P.K. LOHRA], 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 →