2010 (6) TMI 594
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... notice under section 143(2) having not been issued and served in accordance with the provisions of law as contained in section 282 of the Act read with the relevant provision of Civil Procedure Code, 1908, the ld. "CIT(A)" should have held that the assessment order dated 1-7-2008 is bad in law. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE AFORESAID 2. BECAUSE the ld. "CIT(A)" had no occasion to observe, in para 9 of the order dated 18-2-2010, that: '...........This treatment of receipts by Mandi Parishad is not in consistency with accounting principles and treatment by Mandi Samiti. Payment treated as expenditure or application by Mandi Samitis has to be treated as business receipt by Mandi Parishad. The Parishad cannot treat it as liability, as these ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 5. The aforesaid contention of learned counsel for the assessee was not controverted by learned D.R. 6. We have considered the rival submissions and carefully gone through the material available on record. In the present case, the assessee had objected to the observation of learned CIT(A) which had been reproduced in the ground No. 2. The similar observations were made by the learned CIT(A), vide order dated 24-12-2009 vide para 10.4 in the case of Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Banthra against the said order the assessee filed Cross Objection and while adjudicating the said Cross Objection filed by the said assessee vide CO. No. 9/Luc/10 arising out of I.T.A. No. 144/Luc/10 for the assessment year 2006-2007, the relevant findings have been....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s business receipt by Mandi Parishad. The Parishad cannot treat it as liability as these receipts are firstly non-voluntary contribution by Samitis, secondly non-refundable and are not considered by Samitis as advances in books of account. In view of this, the Assessing Officer is directed to make a reference to the Assessing Officer of Mandi Parishad to take remedial measures, if necessary, in all the relevant assessment years to tax the relevant receipts in the hands of Mandi Parishad." 10. During the course of hearing, the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the ld. CIT(A) was not dealing with the appeals relating to the Mandi Parishad and no material was available before him relating to the impugned issue, so these findings had....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he ground raised by the assessee is allowed. 8. The issue involved in ground No. 3 relates to the deduction for accumulation of income as provided in section 11(1)(a) of the Act. 9. The facts related to this issue, in brief, are that the assessee had shown total receipt of Rs. 1,32,19,569 as per receipt and payment account, however, the Assessing Officer had calculated the exemption @15 per cent under section 11(1)(a) of the Act with reference to Rs. 68,32,435. 10. The assessee carried the matter to learned CIT(A) who, after considering the submissions of the assessee, observed that the assessee had shown the receipt at Rs. 1,33,03,467 in the receipts and payment account and after allowing deduction for administrative and other expenses,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....urposes of assessment of Income-tax. The facts of the said case were that the assessee trust received donation in the aggregating sum of Rs. 2,57,376 and applied there out for its charitable purposes the aggregate sum of Rs. 1,70,369, leaving a balance of Rs. 87,010. The question was whether the assessee was entitled to accumulate 25 per cent of Rs. 2,57,376 as it contended or 25 per cent of Rs. 87,010 as the revenue appeared to contend. The Hon'ble Apex Court held that from the plain language of section 11(1)(a) of the Act, it was clear that a charitable or religious trust is entitled to accumulate 25 per cent of its income derived from property held under trust and in the said case, the donations received by the assessee were of Rs. 2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iness receipt by Mandi Parishad. The Parishad cannot treat it as liability, as these receipts are firstly non-voluntary contribution by Samitis, secondly non-refundable and are not considered by Samitis as advance in their books of account" without even going through the accounts of Mandi Parishad or without any information being available on record and in directing the Assessing Officer as - 'In view of this, the A.O, is directed to make a reference to the Assessing Officer of Mandi Parishad to take remedial measures, if any, in the relevant assessment year to tax the relevant receipts in the hands of Mandi Parishad.' and such a direction to the Assessing Officer is wholly erroneous and outside the purview of the present appeal.....