2025 (5) TMI 108 - AT - Income Tax

Commission income from sugar mills qualifies as business receipts for Cane Development Councils under section 80P deduction

ITAT Lucknow held that commission income earned by Cane Development Councils and Cooperative Cane Development Unions from sugar mills constitutes business ... Allowance of deduction u/s 80P in respect of interest income - commission income earned by Cane Development Councils and Cooperative Cane Development Unions from sugar mills on sugarcane supplied independently by sugarcane growers at rates fixed by the State Government constitutes 'business receipts' or income from other sources under the Income Tax Act, 1961. HELD THAT:- Both the Cane Development Council and the Cooperative Cane Development Unions( or Cane Growers Cooperative Society) perform an important role in the cane production and marketing in a particular area or zone. While the unions are directly involved in the marketing of the sugar cane to the various factories, the Council performs a number of functions to facilitate the production and supply of sugarcane in the area assigned to it. Therefore, it is quite clear that the commission that is paid by the occupier of the factory or by Gud, Rub or Khandsari units is not on account of some investment that is made by these Councils or Unions with the factories but rather because of their role in production and marketing of sugar cane in that particular area. The payment of commission is therefore, attributable to the activity of production and marketing of sugarcane for which the Cane Development Councils and the Co-operative Cane Development Unions have been set up the under the Sugarcane Act and Rules. Since the Ld CIT(A) has made references to the functions performed under this Act and the Rules framed thereunder in his order, we hold that the Revenue is not justified in contending that he has not given a finding on the nature of the Commission received by the Assessees. We, therefore, uphold the decision of CIT(A) to allow the same to be deducted u/s 80P as they are receipts from the business and not income from other sources. Accordingly, all the appeals of the Revenue, which do not seem to have taken cognizance of the assigned roles of the Cane Development Councils or Cooperative Cane Development Unions in the production of marketing of cane as per the U.P. Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply & Purchases) Act, 1953 read with the U.P. Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply & Purchases) Rules, 1954, are fit to be dismissed. 1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe core legal questions considered by the Tribunal are:(a) Whether the commission income earned by Cane Development Councils and Cooperative Cane Development Unions from sugar mills on sugarcane supplied independently by sugarcane growers at rates fixed by the State Government constitutes 'business receipts' or should be treated as 'income from other sources' under the Income Tax Act, 1961.(b) Whether the deduction under section 80P of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is allowable in respect of such commission receipts, particularly when the Assessing Officer (AO) contended that these receipts were not business income and that no finding of fact was recorded by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] regarding the efforts made by the societies in earning such commission.(c) Whether the delay in filing of certain appeals by the Revenue should be condoned in light of the Covid-19 pandemic and the Supreme Court's extension of limitation periods.2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSISIssue (a): Nature of Commission Income - Business Receipts or Income from Other SourcesRelevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Section 80P(2)(i)(a)(iii) of the Income Tax Act provides deduction to cooperative societies engaged in the marketing of agricultural produce grown by its members, with respect to income derived from such activities. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Totgars Cooperative Sale Society Limited vs. Income Tax Officer (2010) 322 ITR 283 held that interest income earned on surplus funds is not attributable to the business activities and hence not eligible for deduction under section 80P.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal examined the statutory framework under the U.P. Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply & Purchases) Act, 1953 and the Rules, 1954, which govern the functioning of Cane Development Councils and Cooperative Cane Development Unions. Section 6 of the Act outlines the developmental and facilitative roles of the Councils, including planning, irrigation development, pest control, training, and supply of fertilizers and seeds. Rule 57 defines the role of Cooperative Cane Development Unions in making arrangements for sowing, supply, and sale of sugarcane by members in compliance with instructions from the Cane Commissioner.Section 18 of the Act mandates that the occupier of sugar factories pay contributions and commission to these bodies, with Rule 49 specifying a commission rate of 3% of the minimum statutory cane price, apportioned between the Cooperative Societies and the Council. These payments are not investment returns but are remunerations for the active role performed by these bodies in production and marketing.Key Evidence and Findings: The Tribunal noted that the commission was paid by sugar mills to the Councils and Unions as a direct consequence of their statutory role in marketing and facilitating sugarcane production. The CIT(A) had referred to these statutory provisions, thereby implicitly recognizing the commission as business income.Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal held that the commission income is clearly linked to the business activities of the Cane Development Councils and Cooperative Cane Development Unions in marketing agricultural produce. Hence, such income qualifies as 'profits and gains of business' under the Income Tax Act and is eligible for deduction under section 80P.Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Revenue argued that the CIT(A) erred by not recording a specific finding of fact on whether efforts were made by the societies to earn the commission and contended that the commission should be regarded as income from other sources. However, the Tribunal rejected this contention, emphasizing that the statutory framework and the functions assigned to these bodies clearly demonstrate the business nature of the commission income. The Tribunal also distinguished the Revenue's reliance on precedents concerning interest income and cases where the cooperative status or nature of commission was disputed, as irrelevant to the present facts.Conclusions: The commission income earned by Cane Development Councils and Cooperative Cane Development Unions is business income arising from their statutory activities in production and marketing of sugarcane and thus eligible for deduction under section 80P.Issue (b): Allowability of Deduction under Section 80PRelevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Section 80P(2)(i)(a)(iii) provides deduction to cooperative societies engaged in marketing agricultural produce of members. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Totgars Cooperative Sale Society Limited clarified that only income attributable to such business activities qualifies for deduction.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to allow deduction under section 80P on commission income, as it was derived from business activities covered under the Sugarcane Act and Rules. The Tribunal noted that the AO's disallowance of deduction was based on a misclassification of the commission as income from other sources and failure to appreciate the statutory role of these bodies.Key Evidence and Findings: The Tribunal relied on the statutory provisions mandating payment of commission to these bodies for their role in marketing sugarcane and the CIT(A)'s reference to these provisions in his order. The Tribunal found no fault with the CIT(A)'s conclusion that commission income was business income and eligible for deduction.Application of Law to Facts: Since the commission income is business income, the deduction under section 80P is rightly allowable. The Tribunal distinguished the interest income on surplus funds, which was rightly disallowed as business income by the CIT(A) and was not under challenge.Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Revenue's argument that the CIT(A) failed to give a finding on the nature of commission income was rejected as the CIT(A) had implicitly done so by referring to the statutory framework. The Tribunal also rejected the call for remand to the AO for further findings, as the facts were clear and undisputed.Conclusions: Deduction under section 80P is allowable on commission income earned by Cane Development Councils and Cooperative Cane Development Unions as it is income from business activities.Issue (c): Condonation of Delay in Filing AppealsRelevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The Supreme Court's suo moto writ petition (Civil) No. 3 of 2020 extended limitation periods due to Covid-19 related difficulties.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal noted the delay in filing some appeals by the Revenue ranging from 108 to 149 days. However, the Department filed condonation petitions citing the Supreme Court's extension of limitation periods during the pandemic.Key Evidence and Findings: The Tribunal observed that the entire period of delay fell within the extended limitation period granted by the Supreme Court.Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals and proceeded to adjudicate the merits of the case.Conclusions: Delay in filing appeals was condoned in view of the Supreme Court's extension of limitation periods during the Covid-19 pandemic.3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS'The payment of commission is therefore, attributable to the activity of production and marketing of sugarcane for which the Cane Development Councils and the Co-operative Cane Development Unions have been set up under the Sugarcane Act and Rules.''Since the Ld CIT(A) has made references to the functions performed under this Act and the Rules framed thereunder in his order, we hold that the Revenue is not justified in contending that he has not given a finding on the nature of the Commission received by the Assessees.''We, therefore, uphold the decision of the ld. CIT(A) to allow the same to be deducted under section 80P as they are receipts from the business and not income from other sources.'Core principles established include:Commission income received by cooperative societies engaged in marketing agricultural produce of members, pursuant to statutory provisions, constitutes business income.Such business income is eligible for deduction under section 80P(2)(i)(a)(iii) of the Income Tax Act.Interest income on surplus funds, not connected to business operations, is not eligible for such deduction.Extension of limitation periods due to extraordinary circumstances such as the Covid-19 pandemic can justify condonation of delay in filing appeals.Final determinations:The commission income earned by Cane Development Councils and Cooperative Cane Development Unions is business income.Deduction under section 80P is allowable on such commission income.The delay in filing appeals by the Revenue is condoned.All appeals filed by the Revenue challenging the allowance of deduction under section 80P on commission income are dismissed.