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

PDF · subscribers
ITA/39/2013HC RajasthanRJHC01020760201318 February 2015Author: GOVIND MATHUR,P.K. LOHRA2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The Tribunal held that the remand made by it to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was in accordance with law. The Tribunal directed a fresh adjudication of the matter, taking into consideration the provisions of Section 11(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as the Commissioner (Appeals) had previously examined the exemption claim under Section 11(2). Regarding the second issue, the Tribunal found that the decision on setting off excess expenditure against income of earlier years was based on a judgment of the High Court. The Tribunal noted that the assessee is a statutory charitable institution and that exemption is available to it subsequent to 2009. Consequently, the Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the impugned order. The appeal was dismissed.

What were the facts?

The Revenue, Commissioner of Income Tax, Bikaner, has appealed against the order dated 18.12.2012 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Jodhpur Bench. The appeal challenges the ITAT's decision to remand the matter to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for re-examination of the assessee's claim for exemption under Section 11(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Revenue also disputes the ITAT's decision regarding the setting off of excess expenditure against income of earlier years. The assessee is Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Gharsana, which is stated to be a charitable institution created by statute.

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, when the Commissioner (Appeals) 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 ITAT 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 D.B. INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.39/2013 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 →