Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Uttarakhand High Court

Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M/S Uttaranchal Live Stock Development ... on 31 December, 2012

Author: U.C. Dhyani

Bench: U.C. Dhyani

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

                     Income Tax Appeal No. 28 of 2012

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax.                  .......... Appellant

                                      Versus

M/s Uttaranchal Live Stock Development Board. ............ Respondent

Mr. H.M. Bhatia, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. P.R. Mullick, Advocate for the respondent.


Hon'ble Barin Ghosh, C.J.

Hon'ble U.C. Dhyani, J.

An Amendment Application has been filed in Court, which is accepted on record. The same is allowed by removing the word "Deputy", fixed before the word "Commissioner", in the cause-title of the appeal.

2. Some contribution has been made by the Central Government in order to fulfill certain social obligations of the Central Government. Those contributions have been made to the State Government. In turn, the State Government has made the contribution available to the respondent assessee, which is a society incorporated in the State, by and at the instance of the State Government. The contribution, thus made available, is to be utilised for achieving that particular social obligation of the Central Government. Respondent assessee was not registered under Section 12A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 during the relevant assessment year, when the contribution reached the hands of the assessee. In those circumstances, the Assessing Officer contended that the contribution, thus received, is not exempted from payment of income tax. Assessment, accordingly, has been made. The Commissioner of Appeals and the Tribunal have held in favour of the assessee, inasmuch as, they have held that the contribution was in the nature of a capital receipt and the same remained unutilized until the end of the relevant assessment year.

3. From the narration above, it appears that a contribution has been made by the Central Government to achieve one of its social obligations and it is the Central Government, itself, which is saying that a part thereof is required to be recovered by way of income tax. While we shall consider the legal obligation of the respondent assessee, if it is at all required to be gone in; in the meantime, request that the matter be placed before the High Powered Committee appointed for sorting out disputes inter se two departments of the Government, inasmuch as, the contribution came from the Department of Animal Husbandry and Dairy, Ministry of Agriculture, and tax thereon is claimed by the Ministry of Finance.

4. Admit. List for hearing in its turn.

5. In the meantime, it is hoped and expected that a decision will be taken by the High Powered Committee.

                   (U.C. Dhyani, J.)            (Barin Ghosh, C. J.)
                      31.12.2012                     31.12.2012
G