Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Market Committee, Fatehabad

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA ATCHANDIGARH. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Market Committee, Fatehabad I.T.A. No.165 of 2011 (O&M)Date of decision: 6.7.2011 -----Appellant -----Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL ACTING CHIEF JUSTICEHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL Present:-Mr. Yogesh Putney, Sr. Standing counselfor the Revenue. ---for the Revenue. --- ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, ACJ This appeal has been preferred by the revenue underSection 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “the Act”)against the order of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench“F”, New Delhi dated 18.7.2009 in I.T.A. No.1413/Del/09 for theassessment year 2006-07 proposing following questions of law:- “i)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of thecase, the learned CIT(A) was justified in allowingpayment of 30% of Market fees earned by it paid toHaryana Agricultural Marketing Board as applicationof income for charitable purpose, despite the findingthat 30% of the market fee has to be paid to the saidBoard as a statutory obligation under the AgriculturalMarketing Board Act, and therefore, it is notapplication of income, but it is sharing of Income byan overriding title as per the Act by which the MarketCommittee is governed?”case, the learned CIT(A) was justified in allowingpayment of 30% of Market fees earned by it paid toHaryana Agricultural Marketing Board as applicationof income for charitable purpose, despite the findingthat 30% of the market fee has to be paid to the saidBoard as a statutory obligation under the AgriculturalMarketing Board Act, and therefore, it is notapplication of income, but it is sharing of Income byan overriding title as per the Act by which the MarketCommittee is governed?” ii)“Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case,the learned ITAT was justified in holding that theassessee has fulfilled the mandatory requirements ofsection 11(2) without specifically mentioning thedefinite purpose or purposes of accumulation in formNo.10.”the learned ITAT was justified in holding that theassessee has fulfilled the mandatory requirements ofsection 11(2) without specifically mentioning thedefinite purpose or purposes of accumulation in formNo.10.” Learned counsel for the appellant fairly states that asfar as question (1) is concerned, the same is covered against therevenue by judgment of this Court dated 5.7.2010 in I.T.A. No.151of 2010 inCIT v. Market Committee, Narwanaand as far asquestions (2) is concerned, the same is covered against therevenue by judgment of this Court dated 28.1.2011 in I.T.A.No.823 of 2010Commissioner of Income Tax, Hisarv. MarketCommittee, Sohana. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE July 06, 2011ashwani ( AJAY KUMAR MITTAL ) JUDGE