The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs. Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti

PDF · subscribers
MAIT/183/2007HC Madhya Pradesh25 November 2019Author: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE2 pages
For Petitioner: Sanjeev Tuli
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. The Court noted that the Revenue's counsel did not dispute that the detailed order passed in M.A.I.T.No.201/2007 (The Commissioner of Income Tax-II, Jabalpur Vs. Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Rewa) would govern the decision of the present appeal. Since the appeal in M.A.I.T.No.201/2007 was dismissed by an order of even date, the present appeal was also dismissed on the same grounds. The specific reasoning of the ITAT for granting registration under Section 12A and 12AA, or the arguments presented by the assessee, are not detailed in this High Court order, as the decision hinges on the precedent set by the related case.

What were the facts?

The Commissioner of Income Tax, Bhopal (Revenue) filed an appeal before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Indore Bench. The ITAT's order, dated July 20, 2007, directed the registration of Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Lateri, District Vidisha (assessee) under Section 12A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The appeal was admitted on November 29, 2007, for determination of substantial questions of law. The Revenue's counsel did not dispute that a detailed order passed in a similar case, M.A.I.T.No.201/2007 (The Commissioner of Income Tax-II, Jabalpur Vs. Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Rewa), would govern the decision of this appeal.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is justified in holding that the Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti is engaged in charitable work and therefore entitled to the benefits under Section 12A and 12AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961? Assessee's contentions: Not recorded in the judgment. Revenue's contentions: The Revenue's counsel did not dispute that the decision in a similar case, M.A.I.T.No.201/2007, would govern this appeal. This implies the Revenue did not present separate arguments for this specific appeal, relying on the outcome of the cited case.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 12A,Section 12AA

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
-( 1 )- THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH: JABALPUR (Division Bench) M.A.I.T.No.183/2007 The Commissioner of Income Tax, Bhopal (M.P.) ….Appellant/Revenue Versus Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Lateri District Vidisha (M.P.) …Respondent/assessee Coram Hon’ble Shri Justice Ajay Kumar Mittal, Chief Justice Hon’ble Shri Justice Mohd. Fahim Anwar, Judge Appearance Shri Sanjay Lal, Advocate for the appellant/Revenue.

O R D E R (25.11.2019)

Per: Ajay Kumar Mittal, C.J. (Oral)

The Revenue has filed this appeal against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Indore Bench, Indore passed in I.T.A.No.379/Ind/2007 dated 20.7./2007 directing registration of the assessee-Krishi Upaj Mandi under Section 12A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. This appeal was admitted on 29.11.2007 for determination of the following substantial questions of law:- “Whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jabalpur is justified in coming to hold that the Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, the first respondent is engaged in charitable work and, therefore, he is entitled to get the benefit under Section 12-A and 12-AA of the Income-tax Act, 1961?”

3.

It was not disputed by the learned counsel for the revenue that detailed order passed in M.A.I.T.No.201/2007 (The Commissioner of Income Tax-II, M.A.I.T.No.201/2007 (The Commissioner of Income Tax-II, Jabalpur Vs. Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Rewa), where the appeal has been dismissed, this appeal is also dismissed.

(Ajay Kumar Mittal) (Mohd. Fahim Anwar) Chief Justice

Judge PHILIP Date: 2020.01.27 17:07:40 +05'30' -( 2 )-

C.

More judgments on Section 12A

All 6,064 judgments and leading authorities on Section 12A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →