9911796707
TMI Blog1996 (3) TMI 562X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... holding that Mandi fee was not a tax nor a duty within the meaning of cl. (a) of s. 43B of the IT Act, 1961 ? 2. Briefly stated, the facts of each case are as under : (A) Misc. Civil Case No. 380 of 1992 : The Department filed applications under s. 256(1) of the Act which were registered as RA No. 253 and 259/Ind/91 arising out of the orders passed by the Tribunal in ITA No. 111 and 414/Ind/1988 for asst. y₹ 1984-85 and 1985-86. The assessee is a registered firm. The ITO found that there was outstanding balance of ₹ 24,256 in the asst. yr. 1984-85 and of ₹ 26,800 in the asst. yr. 1985-86, in Krishi Upaj Mandi Account. He held that provisions of s. 43B of the Act were attracted. He, therefore, made addition of the said ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. The Department then filed appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal held that it was neither a tax nor a duty but a fee and the word "fee" was inserted in s. 43B(a) of the Act w.e.f. 1st April, 1989. Placing reliance on S. Subbarao & Co. vs. Union of India (supra), the Tribunal dismissed the appeal. The Department then filed an application under s. 256(1) of the Act proposing two questions. The Tribunal, however, accepted the application in part and referred only one question of law, as noted above. (C) Misc. Civil Case No. 383 of 1992 : The Department filed application under s. 256(1) of the Act which was registered as RA No. 304/Ind/1991 arising out of the order passed by the Tribunal in ITA No. 718/Ind/1990 for asst. yr. 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , made addition of the said amount to the income of the assessee. On appeal, the CIT(A) held that the Mandi Tax was a fee collected for the services rendered and as such provisions of s. 43B of the Act were not attracted. He, therefore, deleted the addition. The Department then filed appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal held that it was neither a tax nor a duty but a fee and the word "fee" was inserted in s. 43B(a) of the Act w.e.f. 1st April, 1989. Placing reliance on S. Subbarao & Co. vs. Union of India (supra), the Tribunal dismissed the appeal. The Department then filed an application under s. 256(1) of the Act proposing two questions. The Tribunal, however, accepted the application in part and referred only one question o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f 1992. None appeared for the non-applicant/assessee in Misc. Civil Case Nos. 380, 384 and 385 of 1992. 4. The similar question was referred by the Tribunal in Misc. Civil Case No. 381 of 1992 [CIT vs. Dineshkumar Gordhanlal [since reported at (1996) 135 CTR (MP) 481]. However, as the point had stood concluded against the Department in decisions in [1988]173ITR708(AP) (supra) and CIT vs. Mohansingh & Sons (1995) 216 ITR 432, the question was answered in favour of the assessee and against the Department. 5. The aforesaid question thus stands concluded. Nothing substantial is urged to persuade us to take a different view in the matter. 6. Accordingly we answer the question in all these Misc. Civil Cases in the affirmative i.e. in favour of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
