U.P.State Horticultural, Lucknow V. Income Tax Officer-II(3), Lucknow

ITA 109/LKW/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8238 (ITAT-LUCKNOW)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-11-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 08-11-2012
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 07-03-2012
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RANU BISWAS
• Assessee Lawyers: V B BHARGAVA
• Keywords: Depreciation; Unabsorbed depreciation

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW SMC BENCH, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI S UNIL KUMAR YADAV , JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 109/LKW/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007 - 08 U.P. STATE HORTICULTURAL COOPE R ATIVE MARKETING FEDERATION LUCKNOW V. INCOME TAX OFFICER RA NGE II(3) LUCKNOW PAN: AAAFU6332R (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SHRI. V. B. BHARGAVA, FCA RESPONDENT BY: SMT. RANU BISWAS, D.R. DATE OF HEARING: 08.11.2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 16.11.2012 O R D E R THIS APPEAL IS PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) ON A SOLITARY GROUND THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS CONFIRMED THE DISALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION CLAIMED UNDER SECTION 80P(2)(A)(III) OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER CALLED IN SHORT THE ACT') MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 2 . I HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND CAREFULLY PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND DOCUMENTS PLACED ON RECORD. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, WHILE ADJUDICATING THE ISSUE OF CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80P(2)(A)(III) OF T HE ACT , THE ASSESSING OFFICER ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN AS TO HOW THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED FOR THE SAID CLAIM. IN RESPONSE THERETO, THE ASSESSEE FILED A LETTER DATED 12.11.2009 STATING THEREIN THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80P(2)(A)(III) OF THE ACT FOR VARIOUS REASONS. THE RELEVANT P ART OF THE LETTER IS EXTRACTED HEREUNDER: - : - 2 - : 1.1 THE SOCIETY IS A HORTICULTURE COOPERATIVE SOCIETY REGISTERED WITH THE REGISTRAR OF HORTICULTURE COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES UNDER THE UTTAR PRADESH SAHA KARI SAMITI ADHINIYAM, 1965 ON 13.11.1992. 1.2 THAT THE SOCIETY IS AN APEX SOCIETY PROMOTED BY U.P. GOVERNMENT FOR SPREADING THE COOPERATIVE MOVEMENT IN THE PROMOTION AND DEVELOPMENT OF HORTICULTURE PRODUCE. THE SOCIETY BEING AN APEX BODY HAS NUMBER OF PRI MARY SOCIETIES REGISTERED AT VARIOUS BLOCK LEVEL OF EACH DISTRICT OF THE SOCIETY, ACCORDINGLY THE LIST OF PRIMARY SOCIETIES ARE ENCLOSED. 1.3 THAT THE SOCIETY CARRIES OUT ASSISTING PROCUREMENT AND MARKETING OF HORTICULTURE PRODUCE LIKE POTATO, MANGO, HO NEY ETC. AMONGST THE GROWERS OF CROPS /FRUITS WHO ARE THE MEMBERS OF THE PRIMARY SOCIETIES. IN SHORT IT CAN BE SAID THAT THE SOCIETY WORKS AS A FACILITATOR. IN VIEW OF THIS, THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80P(2)(A) (III). PRIOR TO THIS ASSESS MENT YEAR THE ASSESSEE HAD UNABSORBED LOSSES AND UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION WHICH WERE CARRIED FORWARD AND SET OFF AGAINST THE INCOME DURING THIS ASSESSMENT YEAR. BUT WE APPREHEND THAT IN PASSING ASSESSMENT ORDER THEIR WILL BE INCOME, ACCORDINGLY THE ASSESSEE WILL BE ENTITLED FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80P(2)(A)(III).' 3 . HAVING EXAMINED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE LIGHT OF THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS COME TO A CONCLUSION THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ENGAGED IN THE MARKETING ACTIVITY DURING THE IMPUGNED YEAR , WHICH MAY QUALIFY FOR EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 80P(2)(A)(III) OF THE ACT AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. HE HAS ALSO OBSERVED THAT THERE IS NO OTHER INCOME QUALIFIES FOR DEDUCTION AS CLAIMED UNDER SECTION 80P(2)(A)(III) OF THE ACT. : - 3 - : 4 . T HE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), BUT COULD NOT PLACE ANY EVIDENCE TO SUBSTANTIATE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE MARKETING ACTIVITY OF THE AGRICULTURAL PRODUCES. THE LD. CIT(A), ACCORDINGLY CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING O FFICER. 5 . NOW THE ASSESSEE IS BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AND REITERATED ITS CONTENTIONS AS RAISED BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. 6 . THE LD. D.R., ON THE OTHER HAND, HAS CONTENDED THAT THE CLAIM OF EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 80P(2)(A)(III) OF THE ACT CAN ONLY BE ALLOWED IF IT IS ESTABLISHED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE MARKETING OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCES GROWN BY ITS MEMBERS. SINCE NO EVIDENCE IS PLACED IN THIS REGARD, THE LOWER AUTHORITIES HAVE RIGHTLY DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE AFORESAID DEDUCTION. 7 . HAVING GONE THR OUGH THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES IN THE LIGHT OF THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, I FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE ITSELF HAS CLAIMED THAT IT WAS ENGAGED IN CONDUCTING TRAINING AND SEMINARS AT VARIOUS PLACES FOR ITS MEMBERS. THOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED THAT THE EXPENSES INCU RRED FOR SUCH TRAINING PROGRAMS AND SEMINARS CONSTITUTED AN ACTIVITY WHICH QUALIF IED FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80P(2)(A)(III) OF THE ACT, BUT FOR CLAIMING OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80P(2)(A)(III) OF THE ACT THE ASSESSEE IS REQUIRED TO BE E NGAGED IN THE MARKETING OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCES GROWN BY ITS MEMBERS. SINCE NO EVIDENCE IS PLACED ON RECORD, I FIND NO MERIT IN THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY I CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND DISMISS THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 8 . IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 16.11.2012. S D/ - [ S UNIL KUMAR Y ADAV ] JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 16.11.2012 JJ: 1511 : - 4 - : COPY FORWARDED TO: 1 . APPELLANT 2 . RESPONDENT 3 . CIT(A) 4 . CIT 5 . DR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR