Income-tax Appeal No.18 of 2011 -1- *** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Income-tax Appeal No.18 of 2011 Date of decision: 1.4.2011 Commissioner of Income-Tax, Hisar ...Appellant Versus Market Committee, Ellenabad ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL Present: Mr. Yogesh Putney, Advocate for the appellant. **** ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J ( Oral) . 1. This appeal has been preferred by the revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against order dated 25.5.2010 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench 'A', Chandigarh in ITA No.429/Chd/2010, for the assessment year 2007-08, raising following substantial questions of law:- “i). Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned ITAT was justified in holding that the expenditure of Rs.65,52,109/- claimed to have been contributed to HSAM Board under statutory obligation by virtue of Section 27 of the Punjab Agricultural Produce Market Act, 1961 is allowable without appreciating that no evidence Income-tax Appeal No.18 of 2011 -2- *** could be produced by the assessee to prove that such expenditure was actually incurred and whether such contribution can be treated to fall within the ambit of application of income for charitable purposes as defined in Section 2(15) of the Act? ii). Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble ITAT is justified in allowing expenditure on acquisition of the corresponding assets had already been allowed as 'application of income' for the purpose of allowing exemption under section 11 of the income-tax Act and as such further allowing of depreciation on these capital assets will amount to double deduction for the same expenditure? iii). Whether allowing of depreciation on the capital assets by Hon'ble High Court is justified in the light of the Hon'ble Apex Court decision in the case of Escorts India Ltd. (199 ITR 43), wherein it has been held that in the absence of clear statutory indication to the contrary, the statute should not be read as to permit an assessee two deductions on the same expenditure? iv) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble ITAT is justified in allowing Income-tax Appeal No.18 of 2011 -3- *** the benefit of accumulation of income amounting to Rs.1,98,42,581/- without appreciating the fact that no such resolution was filed before filing the return and the purpose mentioned was vague?” 3. Learned counsel for the revenue very fairly states that question (i) is covered against the revenue by the judgment of this Court dated 5.7.2010 in ITA No.151 of 2010 Commissioner of Income-Tax, Hisar Vs. Market Committee, Narwana, questions no. (ii) and (iii) are covered against the revenue by the judgment of this Court dated 5.7.2010 in ITA No.535 of 2009 Commissioner of Income Tax, Karnal Vs. Market Committee, Pipli whereas question No.(iv) is covered against the revenue by the judgment of this Court dated 28.1.2011 in TA No.823 of 2010 Commissioner of Income Tax, Hisar Vs. Market Committee, Tohana. 4. In view of above, no substantial question of law arises. The appeal is dismissed. (Adarsh Kumar Goel) Judge April 01,2011 (Ajay Kumar Mittal) Pka Judge