IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITA No. 219 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision:2.7.2009 The Commissioner of Income Tax, Bathinda ......Appellant Vs. Market committee, Sadiq, Tehsil & Distt. Faridkot ...Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY PRESENT: Ms. Savita Saxena, Advocate, Standing Counsel for the Revenue. **** ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. (Oral) 1. Delay condoned. Heard on merits. 2. This appeal has been preferred by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “the Act”) against the order of Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar Bench, Amritsar, passed in ITA No.126 (ASR) 2007 dated 28.9.2007 and corrigendum order dated 21.02.2008 in the case of Market Committee, Sadiq, for the assessment year 2004-05, proposing to raise following substantial questions of law: 1. “Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned ITAT is legally justified in holding that the income of the assessee was ITA No. 219 of 2009 -2- exempt under Sections 11 and 12 of the Income-Tax Act 1961”. 2. “Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned ITAT is legally justified to declare the assessee as charitable institution entitled for registration under Section 12AA in spite of the fact that the income of the assessee is not the income prescribed in the provisions of Sections 11 and 12 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as the income of the assessee is not of the nature as prescribed by Sections 11 and 12”. 3. The assessee -Market Committee, constituted under the provisions of Agricultural Produce Marketing ( Regulation) Act, 1963, claimed exemption under Sections 11 and 12 of the Act on the ground that the income was applied for charitable purposes. This plea was turned down by the AO but was upheld by the CIT (A) as well as the Tribunal. The Tribunal followed the judgment of Bombay High Court in the case of CIT VS. Agricultural Produce and Market Committee (2007) 291 ITR 419. 4. Learned counsel for the Revenue fairly states that the matter is covered against the Revenue by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Gujarat Maritime Board – (2007) 295 ITR 561 (SC) and judgment of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Market Committee – (2007) 294 ITR 563. ITA No. 219 of 2009 -3- 5. In view of the above, this appeal is dismissed. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE (DAYA CHAUDHARY) July 02, 2009 JUDGE raghav Note: Whether this case is to be referred to the Reporter ........Yes/No ITA No. 219 of 2009 -4-