Court No. - 35
1. Case :- INCOME TAX APPEAL No. - 158 of 2010 Appellant :- The Commissioner Of Income Tax And Another Respondent :- M/S Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti Sitapur Counsel for Appellant :- A.N. Majahan,Gaurav Mahajan,S.S.C. I.T.
Counsel for Respondent :- Ashish Bansal,S.K.Garg (Assessment Year 2006-2007)
2. Case :- INCOME TAX APPEAL No. - 156 of 2010 Petitioner :- The Commissioner Of Income Tax And Another Respondent :- M/S Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti Hardoi Petitioner Counsel :- A.N. Majahan Respondent Counsel :- Ashish Bansal,S.K.Garg (Assessment Year 2006-2007)
3. Case :- INCOME TAX APPEAL No. - 160 of 2010 Petitioner :- The Commissioner Of Income Tax And Another Respondent :- M/S Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti Sitapur Petitioner Counsel :- A.N. Majahan S.C.
Respondent Counsel :- Ashish Bansal,S.K.Garg (Assessment Year 2006-2007)
4. Case :- INCOME TAX APPEAL No. - 162 of 2010 Petitioner :- The Commissioner Of Income Tax And Another Respondent :- M/S Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti Sitapur Petitioner Counsel :- A.N. Majahan S.C.
Respondent Counsel :- Ashish Bansal,S.K.Garg (Assessment Year 2006-2007)
5. Case :- INCOME TAX APPEAL No. - 161 of 2010 Petitioner :- The Commissioner Of Income Tax And Another Respondent :- M/S Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti Sitapur Petitioner Counsel :- A.N. Majahan S.C.
Respondent Counsel :- Ashish Bansal,S.K.Garg (Assessment Year 2006-2007)
6. Case :- INCOME TAX APPEAL No. - 164 of 2010 Petitioner :- The Commissioner Of Income Tax And Another Respondent :- M/S Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti Lakhimpur Khiri Petitioner Counsel :- A.N. Majahan S.C.
Respondent Counsel :- Ashish Bansal,S.K.Garg (Assessment Year 2006-2007)
Hon'ble Bharati Sapru,J. Hon'ble Neeraj Tiwari,J.
Heard Sri Gaurav Mahajan, learned Counsel for the appellant- department and Sri Ashish Bansal, learned Counsel for the assessee.
All these appeals arising out of a common order dated 29.10.2009 for the Assessment Year 2006-2007.
As the controversy involved in these appeals is identical, the same is being decided by a common judgement and order treating the Income Tax Appeal No.158 of 2010 as the leading case.
The Income Tax Appeal No.158 of 2010 is an appeal filed by the department under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Appeal, 1961 against an order of the Tribunal dated 29.10.2009 for the Assessment Year 2006-2007. The questions of law sought to be answered are hereunder:-
"(1). Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in law in coming to the conclusion that the amounts paid by the Samiti to the Board in fulfilling of its statutory obligation amounts to application of its income and hence exempt u/s 11 of the Act ?
(2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in law in allowing the benefit to the assessee u/s 11 of the Act of application of its income which the assessee has admittedly not utilized towards its own objective but has merely remitted the income to the Mandi Parishad which is the parent Board ?
(3) Whether the mandatory provision of Section 11 of the Act can be superseded by the provision of U.P. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam, 1964 ?
(4) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in law in ignoring the fact that the assessee had not deposited Rs.5,70,789?- in the P.F. account of the employees as such the same is not allowable under the provisions of Section 43-B read with Section 36 (1) (va) of the Act ?"
Insofar as the questions no.1, 2 & 3 are concerned, the same have been answered infavour of the assessee by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax-II v. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti reported in (2012) 27 taxman.com 42 (SC). The relevant paragraphs are paragraphs no.3, 4 & 5. The aforesaid judgement has allowed the benefit of the provisions of Section 11(1) A of the Act to the assessee.
These questions are, therefore, answered in favour of the assessee and against the department.
Insofar as the question no.4 is concerned, the Tribunal has recorded a finding of fact that the deletion was allowable in favour of the assessee because no amount had been received by the assessee from its employees under the statutory provisions covering the schemes for PF. The A.O. had disallowed it. The CIT had rightly allowed it and the Tribunal has confirmed it.
The question no.4 is also answered in favour of the assessee and against the department.
All these appeals are dismissed as above. No costs.
Order Date :- 27.2.2018 S.P.