C.I.T.BIKANER vs. K.U.M.S.KESRISINGHPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA/30/2013HC RajasthanRJHC01019829201321 January 2015Author: GOVIND MATHUR,JAISHREE THAKUR2 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 ITAT had directed the Commissioner (Appeals) to adjudicate the matter afresh considering Section 11(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which was deemed appropriate as the Commissioner (Appeals) had initially examined the exemption claim under Section 11(2). Regarding the second issue, the Tribunal found that the ITAT's finding on setting off excess expenditure was based on this Court's judgment. It was noted that the assessee, Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, is a statutory creation and a charitable institution, and exemption is available post-2009. Consequently, the High Court found no just reason to interfere with the ITAT's order. The appeal was dismissed.

What were the facts?

The Revenue, Commissioner of Income Tax, Bikaner, has appealed against the order dated 23.11.2012 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Jodhpur Bench. The assessee is Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Kesrisinghpur. 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 appeal also questions the ITAT's decision regarding the setting off of excess expenditure in income of earlier years. The assessee is a statutory creation and considered a charitable institution from inception, with exemption being available post-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 Commissioner (Appeals) had examined it under Section 11(2)? (Question of law) 2. Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal erred in setting off excess expenditure in the income of earlier years? (Question of law) Assessee's contentions: Not recorded. Revenue's contentions: The Revenue argued that the ITAT erred in remanding the matter for examination under Section 11(1)(a) and also erred in allowing the set-off of excess expenditure from 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.30/2013 DATE OF ORDER :: 21.1.2015 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 23.11.2012 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 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) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →