2017 (10) TMI 317 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal upholds CIT(A) order granting deductions under Income Tax Act sections, dismissing department's appeal.

The Income Tax Officer Sabarkantha Ward – 3, Himatnagar Versus The Sabarkantha Dist. Purchase & Sales Union Ltd.

The tribunal dismissed the department's appeal and upheld the CIT(A)'s order allowing deductions claimed by the assessee under Sections 80P(2)(e), ... Deduction u/s.80P(2)(e) - income from godown rent - Held that:- The provision of Sec.80P(2)(e) provides that any income derived by the co-operative Society from the letting of godowns or warehouse for storage, processing or facilitating the marketing of commodities shall be fully entitled for deduction. Since, the appellant satisfies the conditions that claim for deduction is justified. In our considered opinion, assessee claim u/s.80P(2)(e) is allowed. Income by way of interest or dividends - Held that:- The appellant has earned dividend and interest income from other Co-operative Societies and it has accordingly claimed deduction u/s.80P(2)(d) of the Act. The details filed by the appellant show that it has made investment in shares and debentures of various cooperative societies details of which are given in schedule for of the balance sheet. As per the provisions of this section any income by way of interest or dividends derived by any Co-operative society from its investment any other Co-operative Society the whole income would be entitled for deduction. Since, the dividend has been received from other Co-operative Societies the deduction is allowable. Deduction on account of agricultural commission income - Held that:- A perusal of the details filed by the assessee show that the appellant has earned this income from Gujarat State Co-operative Marketing Federation Ltd. for acting as an agent. The assessee company is acting as the nodal agency for all the smaller agencies at Taluka level. The provisions of the section clearly shows that the deduction is allowable for purchase of agricultural implements, seeds, livestock or other articles intended for agriculture for the purpose of supplying them to its members. The assessee has acted as a marketing agent for supplying the fertilizers to its subsidiary cooperative societies meaning thereby that the product is being marketed to the members. Since, the income has been earned from a specified activities, the deduction claimed by the assessee were rightly allowed by the learned CIT(A). The reliance is also placed on the Supreme Court’s decision in the case of appellant himself Sabarkantha Zilla Kharid Vechan Sangh Ltd. V/s. CIT [1993 (8) TMI 2 - SUPREME Court]. It is also noted that the AO has disallowed the estimated expenditure disallowed by the appellant from the activity of commission as it has completely disallowed the claim. The claim made by the assessee was justified as the net profit was rightly allowed as deduction and not the gross income. CIT(A) has rightly allowed the agricultural commission to the assessee. Issues Involved:1. Whether the CIT(A) erred in allowing the deduction claimed under Section 80P(2) of the Income Tax Act.2. Whether the CIT(A) erred in allowing the deduction claimed by the assessee under various sub-sections of Section 80P.3. Whether the CIT(A) ought to have upheld the order of the Assessing Officer.Detailed Analysis:Issue 1: Allowance of Deduction under Section 80P(2)The department argued that the CIT(A) allowed the deduction claimed under Section 80P(2) without giving the Assessing Officer (AO) a reasonable opportunity to examine or rebut the documents submitted by the assessee, thus violating Rule 46A(3)(1) of the Income Tax Rules. However, it was contended that the CIT(A) has coterminous power and can decide the matter on his own after appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case. The tribunal found that this ground was not sustainable and dismissed it.Issue 2: Allowance of Deduction under Various Sub-sections of Section 80PThe department contested the allowance of deductions under Sections 80P(2)(e), 80P(2)(d), and 80P(2)(a)(iv) of the Income Tax Act, arguing that the assessee does not fall within the ambit of a Cooperative Society and was engaged in various trading activities, making it a profit-making organization.1. Deduction under Section 80P(2)(e) for Godown Rent:- The appellant earned income from godown rent amounting to Rs. 23,54,433/- and claimed a deduction under Section 80P(2)(e). The appellant explained that the godowns were let out for marketing commodities, and all maintenance expenses were borne by the tenants.- The tribunal found that the provision of Section 80P(2)(e) allows deduction for income derived from letting godowns for storage, processing, or facilitating the marketing of commodities. Since the appellant satisfied these conditions, the claim for deduction was justified and allowed. This ground of the department was dismissed.2. Deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) for Dividend and Interest:- The appellant earned dividend and interest income from other Cooperative Societies and claimed a deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). The details showed investments in shares and debentures of various cooperative societies.- The tribunal noted that Section 80P(2)(d) provides for a deduction of income by way of interest or dividends derived from investments in other Cooperative Societies. Since the dividend was received from other Cooperative Societies, the deduction was allowable. This ground of the department was dismissed.3. Deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(iv) for Agricultural Commission Income:- The appellant claimed a deduction of Rs. 4,80,591/- on account of agricultural commission income, which was earned from acting as a commission agent for the Gujarat State Cooperative Marketing Federation for marketing inorganic fertilizer. The appellant had disallowed certain expenses on an estimated basis for earning this income.- The tribunal observed that the provisions of Section 80P(2)(a)(iv) allow deduction for income earned from the purchase of agricultural implements, seeds, livestock, or other articles intended for agriculture for supplying them to its members. The appellant acted as a marketing agent for supplying fertilizers to its subsidiary cooperative societies, meaning the product was marketed to the members. The deduction claimed was justified and rightly allowed by the CIT(A). This ground of the department was dismissed.Issue 3: Upholding the Order of the Assessing OfficerThe department argued that the CIT(A) ought to have upheld the order of the AO. However, the tribunal found that the CIT(A) had rightly allowed the deductions claimed by the assessee under various sub-sections of Section 80P, based on the facts and circumstances of the case and the legal provisions. Therefore, this ground of the department was dismissed.Conclusion:In conclusion, the appeal filed by the department was dismissed. The tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order allowing the deductions claimed by the assessee under Sections 80P(2)(e), 80P(2)(d), and 80P(2)(a)(iv) of the Income Tax Act. The tribunal found that the assessee satisfied the conditions for these deductions, and the CIT(A) had rightly allowed them.