Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Market Committee, Jakhal

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA ATCHANDIGARH. I.T.A. No.185 of 2011 Date of decision: 12.7.2011 Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Market Committee, Jakhal -----Appellant -----Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL ACTING CHIEF JUSTICEHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTALACTING 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“E”, New Delhi dated 25.6.2010 in I.T.A. No.1745/DEL/2010 forthe assessment year 2007-08 proposing following questions oflaw:- “1.Whether on the facts and in the circumstancesof the case, the Hon’ble ITAT was justified inholding that the expenditure of Rs.28,00,000/-claimed to have been contributed to HSAMBoard under statutory obligation by virtue ofSection 27 of the Punjab Agricultural ProduceMarket Act, 1961 is allowable withoutappreciating that no evidence could beproduced by the assessee to prove that suchof the case, the Hon’ble ITAT was justified inholding that the expenditure of Rs.28,00,000/-claimed to have been contributed to HSAMBoard under statutory obligation by virtue ofSection 27 of the Punjab Agricultural ProduceMarket Act, 1961 is allowable withoutappreciating that no evidence could beproduced by the assessee to prove that such expenditure was actually incurred and whethersuch contribution can be treated to fall within theambit of application of income for charitablepurposes as defined in section 2(15) of theIncome-tax Act? 2.Whether on the facts and circumstances of thecase, the learned ITAT was justified in holdingthat the assessee has fulfilled the mandatoryrequirements of Section 11(2) withoutspecifically mentioning the definite propose orpurposes of accumulation in Form No.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, this appeal is dismissed. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE July 12, 2011ashwani ( AJAY KUMAR MITTAL ) JUDGE JUDGE