C I T BIKANER vs. K U M S FRUIT and VEG SRIGANGANAGAR

Heard learned counsel for the appellant.

This bunch of appeal arise out of a common order dated 15.4.08 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur ( in short “ITAT” hereinafter), whereby the appeals preferred by the Revenue against the orders passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ( in short “CIT(A)” hereinafter) have been dismissed and some of the appeals preferred by the assessee , stand partly allowed.

According to the learned counsel for the Revenue following substantial questions of law as set out in the appeals arising out of the orders passed by the learned ITAT, require adjudication by this court:- “1. Whether the learned ITAT was justified in confirming the order of CIT(A) directing the Assessing Officer to adopt the status of assessee as charitable trust in accordance with order of the ITAT dated 14.9.07 notwithstanding that the issue of registration u/s 12 A is under challenge by the Revenue ?

Whether the learned ITAT is justified in confirming the order of CIT(A) directing the Assessing Officer to compute the income of the assessee after verifying the application of income as per the provisions of Section 19 of the Rajasthan Agriculture Produce Marketing Act, 1961 whereas, the income should be computed as per the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961?

Whether the learned ITAT is justified in confirming the order passed by the CIT(A) directing the Assessing Officer to allow deduction of contribution to Rajasthan Agriculture Marketing Board from the income of the assessee and to 3 compute the income available for application to charitable purpose ignoring that the expenditure is not of revenue nature and the issue of registration u/s 12 A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is under challenge by the Revenue?

Whether the learned ITAT is justified in confirming the order passed by the CIT(A) directing the Assessing Officer in respect of the expenditure incurred on construction and repair work which is not of revenue nature ?

Whether the learned tribunal has erred in law in dismissing the appeal of the revenue ignoring the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the reported in (2008) 218 CTR( SC)., 433?”

The relevant facts in nutshell are that the assessee are the Market Committees established by the Government of Rajasthan under the provisions of Section 6 of Rajasthan Agriculture Produce Market Act, 1961 ( in short “the Act of 1961” hereinafter) , which were treated as Local Authority for purposes of Income Tax Act, 1961( in short “the IT Act” hereinafter). During the relevant assessment year, the assessee claimed expenses incurred on construction and repair work of buildings, roads etc., but, the same were disallowed by the Assessing Officer ( in short “AO” hereinafter) treating them to be expenses of capital nature. The disallowance was made by the AO for the reason that the status of the assessee was taken as “Local Authority” as against the “Public Charitable Institution” claimed by the assessee and accordingly, various additions of expenditure incurred were made by the AO under the head (a) expenditure incurred on construction and repair works (b)

The applications preferred by the assessees for grant of registration as “Public Charitable Institution” u/s 12 A of the IT Act were rejected by their respective Commissioners of Income Tax. However,the appeals preferred by the assessees aggrieved by the orders passed by their respective Commissioner of Income Tax, were allowed by the ITAT and accordingly, the respective Commissioners were directed to grant registration to the assessees u/s 12 A of the IT Act. All the assessees were granted registration u/s 12 A with retrospective effect i.e. from 1.4. 02. Accordingly, the assesses acquired the status of “Public Charitable Institution” as against the status of “Local Authority”.

Aggrieved by the assessment orders, the assesses preferred appeal before the concerned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeal)( in short “CIT(A)” hereinafter). Since during the pendency of the appeals before the CIT(A), the assessees' appeals against the rejection of the applications for grant of registration u/s 12 A were allowed by the learned ITAT and the status of the assessees as “Public Charitable Institution” was accepted therefore, the learned CIT(A) was requested to accept the status of the assessees as “Public Charitable Institution” instead of “Local Authority” as adopted by the AO while passing the assessment orders. The CIT(A) while accepting the stand

Further appeals preferred by the Revenue aggrieved by the aforesaid orders dated 25.10.07 passed by the CIT(A) have been dismissed by the learned ITAT by the common order dated 15.4.08 relying upon its earlier decisions in the matters involving identical issues.

At the outset, the learned counsel appearing appraise the court that an appeal preferred by the Revenue assailing the validity of the order passed by the ITAT with regard to issue of registration of the Agriculture Produce Market Committee as “Public Charitable Institution” has already been dismissed by this court vide judgment dated 18.3.08 in the matter of “Commissioner of Income Tax vs. K.U.M.S., Jaisalmer”, 216 CTR, 277. In the said decision, a Bench of this Court has held as under:- “5. May be that the income received by the Samiti by way of cess or Mandi fees is not shown to be spent wholly for the purpose of relief of the poor, education,

In view of the aforesaid decision of this court, in our considered opinion, the directions issued by the CIT(A) affirmed by the learned ITAT directing the AO to recompute the income after taking the status of the assessees as “Public Charitable Institution” as per the provisions of 11, 12 and 13 of the IT Act cannot be faulted with.

Assailing the validity of the various directions issued by the CIT(A) to the AO with regard to the assessment of the assessees to be carried out treating their status as “Public Charitable Institution”, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the Revenue that the findings recorded by the CIT(A), affirmed by the learned ITAT are ex facie contrary to facts and law. According to the learned counsel the law applicable in the matter has not been examined by the learned ITAT in correct perspective which has resulted in erroneous findings being arrived at. Drawing our attention to the earlier judgment of the ITAT dated 28.9.07 rendered in ITA No.199/JU/2007 “Krishi Upaj

We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant.

It is not in dispute that the application of the fund by the Market Committee and its overall functions are regulated by the provisions of the Act of 1961, which has been enacted by the legislature to provide for better regulation of buying and selling of agriculture produce and the establishment of the markets for 10 agriculture produce in the State of Rajasthan so that the agriculturists may secure a fair return of their agriculture produce. The need of the said enactment was felt for the reason that the agriculturist being generally illiterate and ignorant about prevailing prices of their produce in the market were being exploited by the middlemen and profiteers.

Section 9 of the Act of 1961 deals with the functions and duties of the Market Committee. Section 17 of the Act of 1961 authorises the levy of market fee by the Market Committees. The market fees to be prescribed by the Market Committees is subject to a maximum to be prescribed by the government under the Rules and it has co-relation with the services to be rendered for carrying out the objects of the Act of 1961. Section 18 provides that all money received by the Market Committee shall be paid into a fund to be called “the Market Committee Fund” and all expenditure incurred by the Market Committee under or for the purposes of the Act shall be defrayed out of the said fund. Section 18 A casts an obligation upon the Market Committee to pay to the Board before 15th of every month, such amount as may be prescribed but not exceeding 10% of the income derived by it from license fees, market fees and fines imposed by the court. Section 19 provides for the purposes for which the Market Committee fund shall be expended which include the management of the market proper, the principal

The Board has been established by the State Government u/s 22 A of the Act of 1961 to carry out the purposes specified in Section 22 J of the Act of 1961 and to tender advise to the government and the Market Committees in relation to agricultural marketing as and when referred to. Section 22 H provides for creation of the Marketing Development Fund to be administered by the Board. Section 22 J specifies the purposes for which the Marketing Development Fund shall be utilised by the Board which inter alia includes construction of the market, roads and approach roads to the markets, construction of market yards and sub-yards and leasing or transferring these to the Market Committees.

For the purposes of carrying out the provisions of the Act of 1961, in exercise of power conferred by Section 36 of the Act

Thus, keeping in view the scheme underlying the Act of 1961 and the kind of services to be rendered in implementation of the objects set out, it can be safely concluded that there is a definite public purpose behind the said enactment.

From bare perusal of the various provisions of the Act of 1961 and the Rules made thereunder referred hereinabove, it is manifestly clear that both the statutory bodies i.e. the Market Committee and the Board controlling and managing the Market Committee fund are under an obligation to utilise the same for carrying out the purposes of the Act in accordance with the guidelines prescribed. The Marketing Committee takes the decision as per its own requirement for providing facilities in the market area such as, shelters, sheds, parking accommodation ,

It is not in dispute that the amount given by the assessee to the Board for specific purpose on the approval of the project by the State Government. The learned ITAT has rightly observed that the amount given is not a voluntary contributions by the assessee but, towards the achievement of the object set out in the Act for which the assessee came into existence. It is not even the case of the Revenue that the assessee can claim the refund of the amount once given to the Board so as to execute and carry out the construction work. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned ITAT has rightly held that the amount which remained un-utilised cannot be treated as “advance” which presupposes existence of an element of getting the amount back in case the terms of the agreement are not complied with. Since, the amount once given for a specific charitable purpose by the Market Committee to the Board is not refundable and the assessee is not in position to ensure that the 14 amount is spent within the same year and also cannot call back the unspent amount therefore, so far as the assessee is concerned, the making of the payment to the Board by itself has to be treated “application”. In this view of the matter, we are in complete agreement with the finding arrived at by the learned ITAT relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of “CIT vs. Thanthi Trust”, (1999) 239 ITR 502(SC) that the crediting of the amount in the account of the Board is enough and the Revenue cannot insist that the amount so given by the assessee must be spent within a relevant year only. In our considered opinion,the Market Committee having put its income to use in conformity with the provisions of the Act of 1961 for charitable purpose, it has to be treated the application of the income for the charitable purpose in the relevant year.

The next question which comes for consideration is as to whether the assessee can claim the utilization of the fund by the Board including spent outside its market area as application of the income.

From bare perusal of the provisions of Section 11(a) of the IT Act, it is manifestly clear that it does not contain any such inhibition that the application of the income for charitable purposes should be restricted to a particular place or the specified area.The words “to such purposes in India” used in said provision shows that the application of the income for charitable

For the aforementioned reasons, we do not find any merit in these appeals, therefore, the same are hereby dismissed. (SANGEET LODHA),J. (A.M.KAPADIA),J. Aditya/-