Mobile View
Main Search Forums Advanced Search Disclaimer
Cites 1 docs
The Finance Act, 1996

User Queries
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Hyderabad
Agricultural Market Committee, ... vs Department Of Income Tax on 9 December, 2010

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

HYDERABAD BENCH 'B', HYDERABAD

BEFORE SHRI N.R.S.GANESAN,JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AKBER BASHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

ITA No. Assessment Appellant Respondent year

905/Hyd/2010 2006-07 Income-tax Agricultural Market officer,Ward-1, Committee, Addanki

Ongole.

( PAN-AAALA 0248 C)

906/Hyd/2010 2006-07 Income-tax Agricultural Market officer,Ward-2, Committee, Darsi

Ongole.

( PAN-AAALA 0243 R)

907/Hyd/2010 2006-07 Income-tax Agricultural Market officer,Ward-1, Committee, Martur

Ongole.

( PAN-AAALA 0238 L)

908/Hyd/2010 2006-07 Income-tax Agricultural Market officer,Ward-2, Committee, Cumbum

Ongole.

( PAN-AAALA 0244 J)

909/Hyd/2010 2006-07 Income-tax Agricultural Market officer,Ward-2, Committee, Giddalur

Ongole.

( PAN-AAALA 0241 P)

Appellants by : Shri K.E.Sunil Babu Respondent by : None

2 ITA.No.905 TO 909/Hyd/2010 Agricultural Market Committee, Addanki and 4 others

ORDER

Per Bench:

These appeals by the Revenue are directed against similar but separate orders of the CIT(A) Guntur dated 26.3.2010 for the assessment year 2006-07. Since common and identical issues are involved in these appeals filed by the Revenue, these are heard together and disposed off by this combined order for the sake of convenience.

2. Despite notice, at the time of hearing of appeals by this tribunal on 9.12.2010, none appeared on behalf of the assessees. There is not even an adjournment petition received from the assessees. We accordingly proceed to dispose off these appeals of the Revenue, ex-parte-qua the assessee.

3. Effective grounds of the Revenue, common in all these appeals, read as follows-

"1. The Order of the CIT(A) is erroneous both in law and in facts of the case.

2. The CIT(A) ought to have considered the fact that the provisions of section 10(26AAB) has been introduced by the Finance Act w.e.f. 01.04.2009 and there is no specific mention in the Finance Act that the newly introduced section has retrospective effect.

3. The CIT(A) has not considered the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Narela Vs. CIT 305 ITR 1(2008) wherein it was held that after insertion of explanation to section 10(20) by the Finance Act, 2002 w.e.f.01/04/2003 the AMC is neither a Municipal Committee nor a District Board and it is not entitled to exemption under section 10(20) of the I.T.Act.

4. The learned CIT(A) ought not to have held that income of the AMCs are exempt for the Asst. Yr. 2007-08 following the 3 ITA.No.905 TO 909/Hyd/2010 Agricultural Market Committee, Addanki and 4 others

decision of the I.TAT. Vizag Bench keeping in view of the various decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in respect of issue of effect of amendments to the provisions of the Act/insertion of new provisions:

(a) Hintender Vishnu Thakur Vs. State of Maharashtra (1994) 4 SC 602)

(b) Smt.Dayawati V/s. Inderjit (AIR 1966 SC 1423 in para 10)

(c) Garikapati Veeraiah V/s N.Subbaiah Chowadhary (AIR 157 SC 540). "

3. We have heard the Learned Departmental Representative and perused the impugned orders of the lower authorities and other material available on record. We find that the issues raised in these appeals are squarely covered in favour of the Revenue by the order of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Agriculture Market Committee, Madhira and Others in ITA No.542/Hyd/2009 and others dated 26.3.2010 wherein it was held that the assessees are not eligible for exemption u/s 10(26AAB) of the Act, for the assessment year under consideration wherein they have followed the judgement of the Apex Court in Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Narela Vs. CIT & Others (305 ITR 1) (SC). For the detailed reasoning given in our order dated 26.3.2010 in the case of Agricultual Market Committee, Madhira and others, we hold that the assessee Trusts are not eligible for exemption u/s 10(26AAB) of the Act for the assessment year 2006-07. Accordingly, impugned orders of the CIT(A) are set aside and the orders of assessment of the Assessing Officer are restored. Consequently, grounds of the Revenue in these appeals are allowed.

4 ITA.No.905 TO 909/Hyd/2010 Agricultural Market Committee, Addanki and 4 others

4. In the result, all the five appeals of the Revenue are allowed.

Order pronounced in the court on 9th December, 2010.

Sd/- Sd/- (N.R.S.Ganesan) (Akber Basha) Judicial Member. Accountant Member. Dt/- 9th December, 2010

Copy forwarded to:

1. Agricultural Market Committee, Addanki, Prakasam District.

2. Agricultural Market Committee, Darsi, Prakasam District.

3. Agricultural Market Committee, Martur, Prakasam District.

4. Agricultural Market Committee, Cumbum, Prakasam District.

5. Agricultural Market Committee, Giddalur, Prakasam District.

6. Income-tax Officer, Ward-1, Ongole

7. Income-tax Officer, Ward-2, Ongole

8. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Guntur.

9. Commissioner of Income-tax, Guntur.

10. Departmental Representative ITAT, Hyderabad.

B.V.S.