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

D.B. INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.30/2013 Commissioner of Income Tax, BikanerVs.Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Kesrisinghpur DATE OF ORDER :: 21.1.2015 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOVIND MATHURHON'BLE MISS JUSTICE JAISHREE THAKUR Mr. K.K. Bissa, for the appellant ... This appeal is preferred to question correctness of thejudgment dated 23.11.2012 passed by learned Income TaxAppellate Tribunal, 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 a direction 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 dismissedaccordingly. , J. , J. Sanjay