IN INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCHES, CHANDIGARH BEFORE JUSTICE (Retd.) DEV DARSHAN SUD, PRESIDENT & SHRI J. SUDHAKAR REDDY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos. 1175 to 1180/Chd/2010 Assessment years : 2002-03 to 2007-08 M/s Agriculture Produce Market Vs. ITO, Committee, Kangra Dharamshala PAN No. AACTA4554B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sh. Sunil Sehgal, Adv. Respondent By : Sh. Ravi Sarangal, CIT DR Date of hearing : 17.10.2016 Date of Pronouncement : 21.10.2016 ORDER Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, AM All these appeals are filed by assessee. As issue arising in all these appeals is common, for sake of convenience, they are heard together and are being deposed of by way of this common order. 2. There is five day delay in filing of ITA Nos. 1175 to 1179/Chd/2010 and delay of seven day in filing appeal No. 1180/Chd/2010. After perusing petition of condonation of delay, we condone delay and admit appeals of assessee as we are convinced that assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from filing these appeals in time and delay is condoned. 2 3. assessee is Agriculture Produce Market Committee formed under H.P. Agriculture Produce Market Act, 1969. It was entrusted with dut y of providing facilities of marketing of agricultural products and do other acts in relation of superintendence, direction and control of market committees for regulating marketing of agricultural produce. 4. common issue before us is as to whether assessee is local authorit y in terms of section 10(20) of Income-tax Act, 1961 ( Act ). Section 10 of sub section (20) of Act was amended by Finance Act 2002 w.e.f. 1..4.2003 and explanation was inserted. This section and Explanation read as follows:- 20) income of local authority which is chargeable under head [* * *] Income from house property , Capital gains or Income from other sources or from trade or business carried on by it which accrues or arises from supply of commodity or service 37[(not being water or electricity) within its own jurisdictional area or from supply of water or electricity within or outside its own jurisdictional area]. [Explanation. For purposes of this clause, expression local authority means (i) Panchayat as referred to in clause (d) of article 243 of Constitution or (ii) Municipality as referred to in clause (e) of article 243P of Constitution or (iii) Municipal Committee and District Board, legally entitled to, or entrusted by Government with, control or management of Municipal or local fund; or (iv) Cantonment Board as defined in section 3 of Cantonments Act, 1924 (2 of 1924);] 5. ITA No. 1175/Chd/2010 - This appeal pertain to assessment year 2002-03, which is prior to insertion of Explanation to 10(20) of Act. All other appeals in ITA Nos. 1176 to 1180/Chd.2010 pertains to assessment years 2003-04 to 2007-08, when explanation in question comes in force. 6. We have heard rival contentions and we hold as follows:- 3 (1) For assessment year 2002-03 assessee cannot be held to be local authorit y in view of judgement of Jurisdictional High Court in case of CIT Vs. H.P. Marketing Board ITA No.1 of 2007 alongwith ITA Nos. 17,18 & 19 of 2007 and ITA Nos. 18 & 22 of 2008 judgement dated 26.4.2011. assessee has relied on certain judgements of non-jurisdiction high courts. We cannot follow same in view of judgement of jurisdictional high court. Thus this claim of assessee is dismissed. (2) For other assessment years Jurisdictional High Court in case of Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Solan & others Vs. C IT reported in 250 CTR 432 held that AMCs are not entitled of exemption u/s 10(20) of 1961 Act after insertion of said explanation vide Finance Act 2002 w.e.f. 1.4.2003. judgement was authored by Justice Dev Darshan Sud, as he was then. Respectfull y following binding decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court, we dismiss this claim of assessee of exemption u/s 10(20) of Act for all these assessment years. 7. second common ground in all appeals is that assessee could claim itself as agency of State Government so as to get immunit y from taxation under Article 289(1) of Constitution of India. Ld. C IT(A) submitted that he withdraws this ground. Hence same is dismissed as withdrawn. 8. Ground No.3 of appeal reads as follows:- 3. Whether on facts and circumstances of case Ld. CIT(A) was justified when point raised in appeal that Ld. Assessing officer was not justified t\o take case under section 147 of Income-tax Act, 1961 on basis of survey 4 conducted under section 133 of I.T. Act on office premises of APMC, when they are not doing any business activities. 9. Ld. Counsel for assessee has not advanced any argument against this ground, thus same is dismissed 10. Ground No.4 is against levy of interest u/s 234A and 234B of Income-tax Act, 1961. Levy of interest is consequential in nature. Hence, this ground is dismissed. 11. ground Nos. 5 and 6 are general in nature. 12. In result, appeals of assessee are dismissed. Order pronounced in Open Court on 21/10/2016. Sd/- Sd/- [J.Sudhakar Reddy] [Justice (Retd.)Dev Darshan Sud] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PRESIDENT Dated : 21 October, 2016 Rkk Copy to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR M/s Agriculture Produce Market Committee v. ITO, Dharamshala