Commissioner Of Income Tax, Bikaner v. Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Gajsinghpur

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHANAT JODHPUR J U D G M E N T D.B. INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.193/2014 Commissioner of Income Tax, BikanerVs. Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Gajsinghpur DATE OF JUDGMENT :: 12.04.2016 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOVIND MATHURHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH CHANDRA SHARMA Mr. KK Bissa, for the appellant ... BY THE COURT : This appeal is preferred to question correctness of thejudgment dated 19.5.2014 passed by the Income Tax AppellateTribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur. The argument advanced by learned counsel for the appellantis two-fold :- (1) that the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal erred whileremanding the matter to the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) to examine case of assessee in light of exemptionavailable as per Section 11(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and(2) that the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal erred while setting offexcess expenditure in income of earlier years. We have examined the judgment impugned. So far as the first issue is concerned, it is relevant to notethat the assessee claimed exemption under Section 11(1)(a) of theIncome 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 adirection to adjudicate the entire matter afresh by taking intoconsideration provisions of Section 11(1)(a) of the Act of 1961.In our considered opinion the remand made by the Tribunal is inaccordance with law. The other issue with regard to setting off ofexcess expenditure in income of earlier years is concerned, we areof the opinion that the finding arrived is based upon the judgmentof this Court. It is not in dispute that the Krishi Upaj MandiSamiti, the assessee, is creation of a statute and from inceptionthat is a charitable institution. It is also pertinent to notice thatsubsequent to the year 2009 the exemption as allowed by ITAT isavailable to the assessee. In view of it, we do not find any justreason to interfere in the instant matter being having nosubsequent question of law involved. The appeal is dismissed accordingly. , J. , J.Sanjay