TMI Blog2015 (6) TMI 347X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is no dispute about the fact that APMC is constituted for Marketing of the Agricultural Produce helping the Agriculturists to get the better price in the open market and to avoid the brokers and agents. It appears that the collective efforts were made by the different APMCs in India after the amendment to Sec. 10(20) for getting exemption. Moreover, as per the facts on record the Govt. audit of the assessee for period ending on 30-09-2007 and 31-03- 2008 was completed on 14-07-2009 and hence, there was a delay in finalizing tax audit report. It is also seen that in both the assessment years the returns filed by the assessee were accepted without making any addition. We find that the Explanation 3 below Sec. 271(1)(c) which is deeming pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ining the penalty levied by the AO u/s. 271(1)(c) without appreciating the reasonable causes for late filing of return of income as explained substantiated by the assessee. 2. The facts which are revealed from the record as under. The assessee is Agricultural Produce Market Committee constituted under The Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1963 . In both these assessment years, the assessee did not file the returns of income as per the provisions of Sec. 139 and the assessee was issued the notices u/s. 148 of the Act dated 22-03-2011 and assessments of the assessee were completed determining total income of ₹ 69,54,440/- and ₹ 17,12,370/- for the A.Ys. 2007-08 and 2008-09 respectively. As per the facts on rec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e application for registration u/s 12AA was rejected by CIT on the basis of amended definition of Charitable purpose. The assessment for A.Y. 2008-09 was completed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 148 the taxes due within were paid off under protest immediately on receipt of demand notice. Under the facts and circumstances of the case the assessee were stated to be prevented by reasonable cause to file the return of income within statutory limits. To summarize, timely compliance of submission of returns of income, payment of tax was lacking from our end in view of the following circumstances. a. Upto A.Y 2002-03 all APMCs were enjoying exemption from tax u/s 10(20). Consequently we neither undergone Tax Audit nor filed any return of income upto A.Y. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ciate that the issue of allowability of deduction u/s 10(20) or otherwise to the APMCs was a nationwide issue and hundreds of APMCs were under litigation on the issue. This shows that the issue was certainly debatable one and accordingly, mere delay in filing ROI with audit report due to various reasons as discussed above, cannot be treated at par with intention to evade the taxes and concealment of income. We therefore, in the light of the above mentioned facts humbly submit that the delay in filing returns of income and payment of taxes was due to the unavoidable circumstances. We urge that the delay was not occasioned deliberately or on account of culpable negligence or on account of malafides and accordingly request your honour to drop ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oves the intention of the legislature not to tax such entities which are working for the poor farmers don't have any profit motive. e. Further, up to 30.09.2007 our financial year was from October to September as per rules of our apex body. It took time to carefully convert the consolidated financial statements of our institution with its branches (audited by Govt.) in format required by LT. Act (Le. April to March), complete correct in all respects. f. Moreover, Govt. audit for period ending on 30/09/2007 31/03/2008 was completed on 14/07/2009, naturally resulting in to delay in finalizing tax audit after due dates, which was beyond our control. 2. Your Honour will certainly appreciate that the issue of allowability of d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... delete the penalty u/s 271(l)(c) oblige. 4. Before the CIT(A) the assessee also relied on the decision of the ITAT, Chandigarh Bench in the case of Agriculture Produce Market Committee Vs. DCIT, ITA Nos. 1228 1229/Chd/2010. The CIT(A) was not impressed with the plea of the assessee and he confirmed the penalty. Now, the assessee is in appeal before us. We have heard the Ld. DR. None was present for the assessee. 5. In this case it is not in dispute that the assessee was treated as a local authority u/s. 10(20) of the Income-tax Act up to the A.Y. 2002-03. Subsequently, there was an amendment to section 10(2) of the Incometax Act and the APMC was removed from the definition of the local authority. It is pertinent to note that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
