Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Hisar v. Market Committee, Ellenabad

Income-tax Appeal No.18 of 2011 -1- *** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA ATCHANDIGARH Income-tax Appeal No.18of 2011 Date of decision: 1.4.2011 Commissioner of Income-Tax, Hisar ...Appellant Versus Market Committee, Ellenabad ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL Present: Mr. Yogesh Putney, Advocate for the appellant. **** ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J (Oral). 1.This appeal has been preferred by the revenue underSection 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against order dated25.5.2010 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ChandigarhBench 'A', Chandigarh in ITA No.429/Chd/2010, for the assessmentyear 2007-08, raising following substantial questions of law:- “i).Whether on the facts and in the circumstancesof the case, the learned ITAT was justified inholding that the expenditure of Rs.65,52,109/-claimed to have been contributed to HSAM Boardunder statutory obligation by virtue of Section 27 ofthe Punjab Agricultural Produce Market Act, 1961 isallowable without appreciating that no evidence could be produced by the assessee to prove thatsuch expenditure was actually incurred andwhether such contribution can be treated to fallwithin the ambit of application of income forcharitable purposes as defined in Section 2(15) ofthe Act? ii).Whether on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case, the Hon'ble ITAT isjustified in allowing expenditure on acquisition ofthe corresponding assets had already been allowedas 'application of income' for the purpose of allowingexemption under section 11 of the income-tax Actand as such further allowing of depreciation onthese capital assets will amount to double deductionfor the same expenditure? iii).Whether allowing of depreciation on thecapital assets by Hon'ble High Court is justified inthe light of the Hon'ble Apex Court decision in thecase of Escorts India Ltd. (199 ITR 43), wherein ithas been held that in the absence of clear statutoryindication to the contrary, the statute should not beread as to permit an assessee two deductions onthe same expenditure? iv)Whether on the facts and in the circumstancesof the case, the Hon'ble ITAT is justified in allowing the benefit of accumulation of income amounting toRs.1,98,42,581/- without appreciating the fact thatno such resolution was filed before filing the returnand the purpose mentioned was vague?” 3. Learned counsel for the revenue very fairly states that question (i) is covered against the revenue by the judgment of thisCourt dated 5.7.2010 in ITA No.151 of 2010 Commissioner ofIncome-Tax, Hisar Vs. Market Committee, Narwana, questions no.(ii) and (iii) are covered against the revenue by the judgment of thisCourt dated 5.7.2010 in ITA No.535 of 2009 Commissioner ofIncome Tax, Karnal Vs. Market Committee, Pipli whereas questionNo.(iv) is covered against the revenue by the judgment of this Courtdated 28.1.2011 in TA No.823 of 2010 Commissioner of IncomeTax, Hisar Vs. Market Committee, Tohana.4.In view of above, no substantial question of law arises.The appeal is dismissed. (Adarsh Kumar Goel) Judge April 01,2011Pka (Ajay Kumar Mittal) Judge