The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Bathinda v. Market Committee, Sadiq, Tehsil & Distt. Faridkot

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITA No. 219 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision:2.7.2009 The Commissioner of Income Tax, Bathinda ......Appellant Vs. Market committee, Sadiq, Tehsil & Distt. Faridkot ...Respondent CORAM:-HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOELHON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY PRESENT:Ms. Savita Saxena, Advocate, Standing Counsel for the Revenue. **** ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. (Oral) 1.Delay condoned. Heard on merits. 2.This appeal has been preferred by the Revenue under Section260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “the Act”) against the order ofIncome-tax Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar Bench, Amritsar, passed in ITANo.126 (ASR) 2007 dated 28.9.2007 and corrigendum order dated21.02.2008 in the case of Market Committee, Sadiq, for the assessment year2004-05, proposing to raise following substantial questions of law: 1. “Whether on the facts and circumstances of thecase, the learned ITAT is legally justified inholding that the income of the assessee wascase, the learned ITAT is legally justified inholding that the income of the assessee was ITA No. 219 of 2009 -2- exempt under Sections 11 and 12 of theIncome-Tax Act 1961”. 2. “Whether on the facts and circumstances of thecase, the learned ITAT is legally justified todeclare the assessee as charitable institutionentitled for registration under Section 12AA inspite of the fact that the income of the assesseeis not the income prescribed in the provisions ofSections 11 and 12 of the Income Tax Act, 1961as the income of the assessee is not of the natureas prescribed by Sections 11 and 12”. 3.The assessee -Market Committee, constituted under theprovisions of Agricultural Produce Marketing ( Regulation) Act, 1963,claimed exemption under Sections 11 and 12 of the Act on the ground thatthe income was applied for charitable purposes. This plea was turned downby the AO but was upheld by the CIT (A) as well as the Tribunal. TheTribunal followed the judgment of Bombay High Court in the case of CITVS. Agricultural Produce and Market Committee (2007) 291 ITR 419. 4.Learned counsel for the Revenue fairly states that the matteris covered against the Revenue by the judgment of the Hon'ble SupremeCourt in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Gujarat Maritime Board –(2007) 295 ITR 561 (SC) and judgment of this Court in Commissioner ofIncome Tax vs. Market Committee – (2007) 294 ITR 563. ITA No. 219 of 2009 -3- 5. In view of the above, this appeal is dismissed. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE July 02, 2009raghav (DAYA CHAUDHARY) JUDGE Note: Whether this case is to be referred to the Reporter ........Yes/No ITA No. 219 of 2009 -4-