Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Lucknow
Income Tax Officer, Basti, Basti vs M/S. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Basti on 28 December, 2023
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
LUCKNOW BENCH 'B', LUCKNOW
BEFORE SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER
AND SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
ITA Nos.177 & 178/Lkw/2023
Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15
Income Tax Officer, Vs. M/s Krishi Utpadan Mandi
Civil Lines, Samiti,
Basti Sahiyapur. Naveen Mandi
Sthal,
Sahiyapur, Siddharth Nagar.
PAN: AAALK 0620Q
(Appellant) (Respondent)
ITA Nos.179, 180, 181 & 182/Lkw/2023
Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2017-18
Income Tax Officer, Vs. M/s Krishi Utpadan Mandi
Civil Lines, Samiti,
Basti Bansti. Naveen Mandi Sthal,
Bansi, Siddharth Nagar.
PAN: AAALK 0622N
(Appellant) (Respondent)
Appellant by Shri Ajeet Chaudhary, C.A.
Respondent by Shri S.H Usmani CIT (DR) &
Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma,
Addl.CIT (DR)
Date of hearing 27/12/2023
Date of pronouncement 28/12/2023
I.T.A. No.177 to 182/Lkw/2023
2
ORDER
PER BENCH:
All the captioned appeals have been filed by the Department challenging the orders passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi as per the following details:
S.No. ITA Nos. Date of order of Assessment NFAC Year
1. 177/Lkw/2023 28/02/2023 2013-14
2. 178/Lkw/2023 17/02/2023 2014-15
3. 179/Lkw/2023 10/06/2022 2013-14
4. 180/Lkw/2023 10/06/2022 2014-15
5. 181/Lkw/2023 10/06/2022 2015-16
6. 182/Lkw/2023 10/06/2022 2017-18
2. Since identical issues are involved in the above captioned appeals, therefore, they were taken up together for hearing and are being disposed of through this common order for the sake of convenience.
3. The brief facts of the case are that the captioned assessees are Mandi Samities constituted under Notifications issued by the Government of Uttar Pradesh under Section 5 r.w.s. 6 of the Uttar Pradesh Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhniyam, 1964 for the purpose of regulating the market of Agricultural Produce. It is I.T.A. No.177 to 182/Lkw/2023 3 the stated position that post insertion of Clause (26AAB) of Section 10 by the Finance Act, 2008 w.e.f. 01.04.2009, the entire income of Mandi Samities is exempt from income tax w.e.f. Assessment Year 2009-10 in terms of Section 10 Clause (26AAB) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called the 'Act'). It is also the stated position that Mandi Samities are not specifically required to file the return of income. However, in all the captioned appeals, the assessees filed the return of income claiming exemptions in terms of Section 11 of the Act. Subsequently, the Central Processing Centre, Bangalore of the Income Tax Department made a prima facie adjustment u/s. 143(1)(a) of the Act disallowing the exemption claimed u/s. 11 of the Act.
4. Aggrieved, the assessees approached the NFAC challenging the intimations issued u/s. 143(1)(a) of the Act. The ld. First Appellate Authority (NFAC) accepted the plea of the assessee and allowed the appeals of the assessees by holding that although the assessees might not have claimed the exemption u/s. 10(26AAB) of the Act, they were eligible for the claim of the exemption in view of the facts as well as the case laws in the case of other Mandi Samities on the issue.
I.T.A. No.177 to 182/Lkw/2023 4
5. Aggrieved, the Department has now approached this Tribunal challenging the orders of the ld. First Appellate Authority by raising the following grounds of appeal: ITA No. 177/Lkw/2023
"1. Whether the CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in allowing exemption u/s. 10(26AAB) of the I.T. Act, 1961 without claiming exemption under the aforesaid section in ITR by assessee without giving opportunity and calling for remand report from the Assessing Officer u/s. 250(4) of the I.T. Act, 1961 read with Rule 46A(3) of the. I.T. Rules, 1962.
2. The appellant also craves right to add, alter or amend any ground, which may be taken at the time of hearing."ITA No. 178/Lkw/2023
"1. Whether the CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in allowing exemption u/s. 10(26AAB) of the I.T. Act, 1961 without claiming exemption under the aforesaid section in ITR by assessee without giving opportunity and calling for remand report from the Assessing Officer u/s. 250(4) of the I.T. Act, 1961 read with Rule 46A(3) of the. I.T. Rules, 1962.
2. The appellant also craves right to add, alter or amend any ground, which may be taken at the time of hearing."ITA No. 179/Lkw/2023
"1. Whether the CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in allowing exemption u/s. 10(26AAB) of the I.T. Act, 1961 without claiming exemption under the aforesaid section in ITR by assessee without giving opportunity and calling for remand report from the Assessing Officer u/s. 250(4) I.T.A. No.177 to 182/Lkw/2023 5 of the I.T. Act, 1961 read with Rule 46A(3) of the. I.T. Rules, 1962.
2. The appellant also craves right to add, alter or amend any ground, which may be taken at the time of hearing."ITA No. 180/Lkw/2023
"1. Whether the CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in allowing exemption u/s. 10(26AAB) of the I.T. Act, 1961 without claiming exemption under the aforesaid section in ITR by assessee without giving opportunity and calling for remand report from the Assessing Officer u/s. 250(4) of the I.T. Act, 1961 read with Rule 46A(3) of the. I.T. Rules, 1962.
2. The appellant also craves right to add, alter or amend any ground, which may be taken at the time of hearing."ITA No. 181/Lkw/2023
"1. Whether the CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in allowing exemption u/s. 10(26AAB) of the I.T. Act, 1961 without claiming exemption under the aforesaid section in ITR by assessee without giving opportunity and calling for remand report from the Assessing Officer u/s. 250(4) of the I.T. Act, 1961 read with Rule 46A(3) of the. I.T. Rules, 1962.
2. The appellant also craves right to add, alter or amend any ground, which may be taken at the time of hearing."ITA No. 182/Lkw/2023
"1. Whether the CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in allowing exemption u/s. 10(26AAB) of the I.T. Act, 1961 without claiming exemption under the aforesaid section in ITR by assessee without giving opportunity and calling for remand report from the Assessing Officer u/s. 250(4) I.T.A. No.177 to 182/Lkw/2023 6 of the I.T. Act, 1961 read with Rule 46A(3) of the. I.T. Rules, 1962.
2. The appellant also craves right to add, alter or amend any ground, which may be taken at the time of hearing."
6. At the outset, ld. CIT (DR) submitted that all the captioned appeals were time barred by eight days and in this regard our attention was drawn to the petitions filed for condonation of delay, wherein, it has been submitted by Shri Manish Pathak, Income Tax Officer that the delay in filing of the captioned appeals before the Tribunal was due to the fact that earlier ITBA Portal of the Income Tax Department was not functioning as a result of which the authorizations to file the appeals were delayed and, subsequently, Shri Manish Pathak was deputed by the Department for a search action u/s. 132 of the Act for the period 06.06.2023 till 11.06.2023. The copy of the Departmental communication requiring his presence in conducting the income tax operation vide communication dated 05.06.2023 has also been placed on record in support of the contention. The ld. CIT (DR) submitted that, therefore, the delay was entirely beyond the control of the concerned Officer and it was prayed that the delay be kindly condoned.
I.T.A. No.177 to 182/Lkw/2023 7
7. Per contra, the ld. Authorized Representative had no objection to the delay being condoned.
8. Having heard both the parties on the issue of condonation of delay, we deem it appropriate to condone the delay and admit the captioned appeals for the purpose of hearing.
9. The ld. CIT(DR) submitted that the ld. First Appellate Authority had erred in law in allowing the assessees' claim for exemption u/s. 10(26AAB) of the Act even though the assessees had not claimed such exemption in the returns of income filed and it was further argued that the direction to the Assessing Officer for allowing the assessees' claim for exemption had been given even without calling for remand reports from the Assessing Officer in this regard, which was in gross violation of Rule 46A (3) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. The ld. DR submitted that in all the captioned appeals, the ld. First Appellate Authority had acted in a similar manner and had passed the impugned orders without providing any opportunity to the Assessing Officer and, therefore, the impugned orders were bad in law and needed to be reversed. In the alternate, it was prayed that the appeals may be restored to the file of the Assessing Officer to enable him to examine the contention of the I.T.A. No.177 to 182/Lkw/2023 8 assessees regarding claim of exemption vis-à-vis Section 10(26AAB) of the Act.
10. On a query from the Bench, the ld. A.R. submitted that he had no objection if the appeals were restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for the purpose of examination of assessees' claim of exemption u/s. 10(26AAB) of the Act.
11. We have heard both the parties and have also gone through the records. In view of the consensus of both the parties, we restore all the above six appeals to the Office of the Assessing Officer with the direction to examine the claim of the assessees vis-à-vis Section 10(26AAB) of the Act and, thereafter pass speaking orders, in accordance with law, after providing proper opportunity to the assessees to present their case. 12 In the final result, all the appeals of the Department stand allowed for statistical purposes.
(Order pronounced in the open court on 28/12/2023) Sd/- Sd/-
(ANADEE NATH MISSHRA ) (SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA)
Accountant Member Judicial Member
Dated: 28/12/2023
Aks
I.T.A. No.177 to 182/Lkw/2023
9
Copy of the order forwarded to :
1. The Appellant
2. The Respondent.
3. Concerned CIT
4. The CIT(A)
5. D.R., I.T.A.T., Lucknow
Asstt. Registrar