Income-tax Officer, V. M/s. Nashik Dist. Labour Society Co.op. Fedearation Ltd., Nashik

ITA 1397/PUN/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1132 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-08-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 18-08-2016
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 26-10-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SUHAS S KULKARNI
• Keywords: Commercial expediency; Revenue expenditure

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH, PUNE . . , BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, AM . / ITA NO.1397/PN/2015 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011-12 ITO, WARD - 1(2), NASHIK . / APPELLANT V/S M/S. NASHIK DIST. LABOUR SOCIETY CO-OP. FEDERATION LTD., 1024/1, PLOT NO.3B, SHRAM SAHAKAR, COUMBLE MARG, TIDKE COLONY, NASHIK . / RESPONDENT / APPELLANT BY : SHRI SUHAS S. KULKARNI / RESPONDENT BY : NONE (WRITTEN SUBMISSION) / ORDER PER R.K.PANDA, AM : THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE OR DER DATED 21-08-2015 OF THE CIT(A)-1, NASHIK RELATING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12. 2. NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, WR ITTEN SUBMISSION HAS BEEN FILED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE WITH A REQUEST TO CONSIDER THE SAME. THEREFORE, THIS APPEAL IS BEING DECIDE D ON THE BASIS OF THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND A FTER HEARING THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE. 3. FACTS OF THE CASE, IN BRIEF, ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A COOPERATIVE SOCIETY REGISTERED UNDER THE MAHARASHTRA STATE COOPER ATIVE ACT AND IS ENGAGED IN PROVIDING CREDIT FACILITIES TO ITS MEMBERS. IT FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR ON 28-09-201 1 DECLARING / DATE OF HEARING :18.08.2016 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT:19.08.2016 2 ITA NO.1397/PN/2015 TOTAL INCOME AT NIL AFTER CLAIMING DEDUCTION OF RS.78,42,811/- OF THE I.T. ACT U/S.80P. THE AO OBSERVED THAT IN THE PRECEDING YEARS IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT ASSESSEE IS NOT ENTITLED FOR DEDUCTION U/S .80P(2)(A)(VI) OF THE I.T. ACT ON THE BASIS OF THE DECISION OF HONBLE SUPRE ME COURT IN THE CASE OF UP COOPERATIVE CANE UNION FEDERATION LTD. RE PORTED IN 237 ITR 574. IN THE SAID DECISION IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT THE MEANING OF THE EXPRESSION MEMBERS CANNOT BE EXTENDED TO INCLUDE THE MEMBERS OF A PRIMARY COOPERATIVE SOCIETY WHICH IS A MEMBER OF THE FEDE RATED CO- OPERATIVE SOCIETY SEEKING EXEMPTION AND THEREFORE THE AS SESSEE FEDERATION IS NOT ENTITLED TO DEDUCTION U/S.80P(2)(A)(VI) OF THE I .T. ACT. ON BEING QUESTIONED BY THE AO IT WAS EXPLAINED THAT THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY IS A FEDERATION OF LABOUR CONTRACT SOCIETIES AND TH E MAIN IDEA BEHIND THE FORMATION OF LABOUR CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES WAS T O ALLEVIATE THE CONDITION OF FINANCIALLY WEAKER INDIVIDUAL LABOURER WHO HIMS ELF IS UNABLE TO CARRY ON INDEPENDENT WORK OR TO MEET THE EX ISTING COMPETITION FROM THE ESTABLISHED CONTRACTORS. THE ASSESS EE FURTHER CLAIMED THAT THE STAND OF THE DEPARTMENT THAT THE ASSE SSEE IS NOT ENTITLED FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80P(2)(A)(VI) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 IS WRONG AS THE ASSESSEE'S CLAIM IS CONTINUOUSLY BEING ACCEPTED BY THE LD. CIT(A) AND THE HON'BLE ITAT, PUNE FOR THE LAST SEVERAL YEARS. TH E ASSESSEE FURTHER CLAIMED THAT THE DEDUCTION U/S. 80P(2)(A)(VI) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 IS ALSO RIGHTLY ALLOWABLE IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF THE H ONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE MAR KETING FEDERATION LTD. VS. CIT (231 ITR 814). HOWEVER, THE AO WAS NOT SATISFIED WITH THE EXPLANATION GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE AND M ADE ADDITION OF RS.78,42,811/-. SIMILARLY, HE ALSO DISALLOWED AN AMOUNT OF RS.2,01,750/- ON ACCOUNT OF ADVERTISEMENT EXPENSES. 3 ITA NO.1397/PN/2015 4. IN APPEAL THE LD.CIT(A) FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUN AL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR S ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE AND DELETED THE ADDITION MADE BY TH E AO BY OBSERVING AS UNDER : 6. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE, THE SU BMISSION OF THE APPELLANT, THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND RIVAL CONTENTIONS. THE OR DER OF MY LD. PREDECESSOR AND THE ORDER OF HONBLE ITAT (PUNE) ON SAME ISSUE FOR A.Y. 2006-07, 2008- 09 & 2009-10. THE HONBLE ITAT, PUNE IN ITA NO.62, 63 & 64/PN/2013 DATED 24-02-2014 HAS HELD INTER-ALIA AS UNDER : 3. THE ASSESSEE IS A COOPERATIVE BANK PROVIDING VAR IOUS SERVICES TO ITS MEMBERS. THE MAIN OBJECTS OF THE ASSESSEE IS TO WOR K AS FEDERATION OF SKILLED AND UNSKILLED LABOURERS AND TO WORK AS LIAI SON BETWEEN VARIOUS GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE MEMBERS OF SOCIETY. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED A RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING TOT AL INCOME AT NIL ON 31.10.2006 FOR A.Y. 2006-07 AFTER CLAIMING DEDUCTIO N U/S.80P(2)(A)(VI) WHICH WAS ACCEPTED U/S.143(1). THEREAFTER, THE ASSE SSING OFFICER INITIATED THE PROCEEDINGS U/S.147 ISSUING NOTICE U/ S.148 ON 08.10.2010. 3.1 THE ASSESSING OFFICER THEREFORE, EXAMINED THE R ETURN OF ASSESSEE WHO HAD CLAIMED DEDUCTION OF RS. 36,76,912/- U/S.80 P(2)(A)(VI) AND DISALLOWED THE ADVERTISEMENT EXPENSES OF RS. 1,68,6 00/-. THE MATTER WAS CARRIED BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, W HEREIN THE RELIEF HAS BEEN GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE ON BOTH ACCOUNTS. THE SAME HAS BEEN OPPOSED BEFORE US ON BEHALF OF REVENUE, INTER ALIA SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN ALLOWING DEDUCTION U/S. 80P(2)(A)(VI) WHEN THE ASSESSEE ITSELF IS NOT A COOPERATIVE SOCIETY BU T A DISTRICT FEDERATION OF LABOURERS COOPERATIVE SOCIETY AND INCOME EARNED BY FEDERATION CANNOT BE SAID TO BE ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE COLLECTIVE DISPOS AL OF LABOUR OF ITS MEMBERS AS CONTEMPLATED IN SECTION 80P(2)(A)(VI) OF I.T. ACT. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE HAS SUPPO RTED THE ORDER OF CIT(A) AND SUBMITTED THAT THIS ISSUE IS COVERED IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR A.Y. 2007-08 IN ITA NO.195/PN/2011, WHEREIN, TH IS ISSUE WAS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE BY OBSERVING AS UNDER : 3. AFTER HEARING THE LEARNED DR AND PERUSING THE M ATERIAL ON RECORD, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT ALLOWED THE DEDUCTION DESPITE THE FACT THAT IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN ITA NO. 1064/PN/1984 DATED 5-5-2006 FOR A.Y. 1980-81 THE TRIBUNAL ALLOWE D THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 80P(2) OF THE ACT. 4. WE FURTHER FIND SIMILAR DISALLOWANCES WERE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT YEARS BUT THE TRIB UNAL VIDE ITS ORDER IN ITA NO. 495/PN/2006 FOR A.Y. 2003-04 DATED 30-6- 2008 AND IN ITA NO.1336/PN/2008 FOR A.Y.2005-06 DATED 28-11-2008 HA S CONFIRMED THE ORDERS OF THE \ CIT(A) IN ALLOWING THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE. NOTHING CONTRARY WAS BROUGHT TO OUR KNOWLEDGE ON BEHALF OF REVENUE. WE ARE THEREFORE, OF THE OPINION THAT THE CIT(A) WAS JUSTI FIED IN DIRECTING THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ALLOW THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSE E. THIS VIEW IS FORTIFIED BY THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE MARKETING FEDERATION LTD & OTHERS VS. CIT (231 ITR 841 (SC). WE ACCORDINGLY, UPHOLD THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IN ALLOWING THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 80P(2)(A)(VI) O F THE ACT. 4 ITA NO.1397/PN/2015 3.2 NOTHING CONTRARY WAS BROUGHT TO OUR KNOWLEDGE O N BEHALF OF REVENUE. SO, WE ARE NOT INCLINED TO INTERFERE WITH THE FINDINGS OF CIT(A) WHO HAS ALLOWED THE DEDUCTION U/S.80P(2)(A)( VI). WE UPHOLD THE SAME. SIMILAR ISSUE AROSE IN A.Y. 2008-09 AND 2 009-10. FACTS BEING SIMILAR, SO FOLLOWING THE SAME REASONING, WE UPHOLD THE ORDER OF CIT(A) ON THE ISSUE FOR THE REASONS STATED ABOVE. 4. NEXT ISSUE IN A.Y. 2006-07 IS WITH REGARD TO ALL OWABILITY OF ADVERTISEMENT EXPENSES OF RS. 1,68,600/-. THE ASSES SING OFFICER DISALLOWED THE EXPENDITURE IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, IN APPEAL, THE SAME WAS ALLOWED. THE SAME HAS BEEN OPPOSED BEFORE US ON BEHALF OF REVENUE. WE FIND THAT A SIMILAR ISSUE AROSE IN A.Y. 2009-10 WHICH IS A SPEAKING ORDER ON THE ISSUE, WHEREIN, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED THE ENTIRE ADVERTISEMENT EXPENDITURE OF RS.3,32,320 /- BY RESORTING ONLY TO AUDITORS REMARK IN THE STATUTORY AUDIT. IN APPEA L, THE CIT(A) ALLOWED THE SAME. IT IS A SETTLED LEGAL POSITION THAT BY WA Y OF EXPENDITURE BUSINESSMANS BUSINESS MAY BE BENEFITTED IN A NUMBE R OF WAYS. THE ASSESSEE WHO CAN SEE THE REASONABILITY OF THE EXPEN DITURE INCURRED IN QUESTION IN THE INTEREST OF BUSINESS, SO THE PAYMEN T HAS TO BE VIEWED IN THE LARGER INTEREST OR EXPEDIENCY OF ASSESSEES BUS INESS. THE ASSESSEE HAS INCURRED EXPENDITURE OF RS.3,32,320/- ON ACCOUN T OF ADVERTISEMENT IN SAID YEAR AND THE SAME WAS CLAIMED IN THE NATURE OF BUSINESS. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT CERTAIN DIGNITARIES VISITED THE ORGA NIZATION AND ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO INCUR EXPENSES OUT OF COMMERCIAL EX PEDIENCY BY GIVING WIDE PUBLICITY OF SUCH VISITS IN THE LOCAL PRINT ME DIA IN ORDER TO DERIVE CERTAIN COMMERCIAL BENEFITS. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED T HAT BY VIRTUE OF INTERACTION WITH VARIOUS DIGNITARIES, THE ASSESSEE WAS ABLE TO GET MONETARY LIMIT OF CONTRACT TO LABOUR CONTRACT SOCIE TIES ENHANCED. THE EXPENDITURE WAS, THEREFORE, INCURRED AND CLAIMED AS REVENUE EXPENDITURE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED THE S AME ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PROVIDED PROOF THAT IT WA S FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS PURPOSE. IT IS NOT A CASE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE EXPENDITURE HAS NOT BEEN INCURRED. SINCE THE ASSESS EE HAS ESTABLISHED THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED ON ACCOUNT OF COMMERCIAL E XPEDIENCY, SO THE COMMERCIAL EXPEDIENCY IS TO BE VIEWED FROM THE VIEW POINT OF BUSINESSMAN / ASSESSEE. THE FACTS ON RECORD INDICAT E THE IMPUGNED EXPENDITURE IS ON ACCOUNT OF PUBLIC VISITS OF STATE MINISTERS, LOCAL ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES AND OTHER DIGNITARIES TO TH E CITY OF NASHIK AND THE PREMISES OF SOCIETY, WHO HAVE HELPED THE ASSESS EE IN GETTING MORE CONTRACTS FOR LABOUR, THEREFORE, COMMERCIAL EXPEDIE NCY ESTABLISHED. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, THE EXPENDITURE WAS RI GHTLY MADE BY THE ASSESSEE FOR BUSINESS PURPOSE AND THE SAME WAS RIGH TLY DIRECTED BY THE CIT(A) TO DELETED THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED WHOLLY A ND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE GROWTH OF ASSESSEES BUSINESS. ACCORDINGLY, THE SAME IS UPHELD. A SIMILAR ISSUE AROSE IN OTHER YEARS. FACTS BEING SIM ILAR, SO FOLLOWING THE SAME REASONING, THE ORDER OF CIT(A) IS UPHELD WHO H AS ALLOWED THE EXPENDITURE WHICH WAS DISALLOWED BY THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF NON BUSINESS PURPOSE. 5. IN THE RESULT, ALL THREE APPEALS FILED BY THE RE VENUE ARE DISMISSED AS INDICATED ABOVE. 6.1 SINCE THE FACTS ARE IDENTICAL AND NOTHING CONTR ARY TO THAT OF EARLIER YEARS HAS BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE AO IN THE ASSESSM ENT ORDER, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE ITAT IN APPEL LANTS OWN CASE FOR A.YRS. 2006,07, 1008-09 & 2009-10, THE ADDITIONS OF RS.78, 42,811/- AND RS.2,01,750/- ARE DELETED. GROUND NOS. 1 TO 6 ARE ALLOWED. 5 ITA NO.1397/PN/2015 5. AGGRIEVED WITH SUCH ORDER OF THE CIT(A) THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US WITH THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS : 1. WHETHER IN THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCE OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A)-1, NASHIK WAS JUSTIFIED IN ALLOWING EXEMPTION F ROM INCOME-TAX TO THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY U/S. 80P(2)(A)(VI) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 EVEN THOUGH THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY IS A FEDERATION OF PRIMARY SOC IETIES WHICH ONLY SUPERVISES AND CO-ORDINATES THE AFFAIRS OF ITS MEMBERS AN D CANNOT BE SAID TO BE ENGAGED IN THE COLLECTIVE DISPOSAL OF THE LABOU R OF ITS MEMBERS WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 80P(2)(A)(VI) OF THE I.T. ACT , 1961. 2. WHETHER IN THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF TH E CASE, THE LD. CIT(A)-I, NASHIK WAS JUSTIFIED IN HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSE E WAS ENGAGED IN THE COLLECTIVE DISPOSAL OF THE LABOUR OF ITS MEMBERS WH EN THERE IS NO INDIVIDUAL WHO IS MEMBER OF THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY . 3. WHETHER IN THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF TH E CASE THE LEARNED CIT(A)-1, NASHIK WAS JUSTIFIED IN HOLDING THA T ADVERTISEMENT EXPENSES OF RS. 2,01,750/- ARE INCURRED MAINLY FOR WE LCOME/FELICITATION OF MINISTERS, OFFICIALS AT SECRETARIAT AND LOCAL LEADERS E TC. ALL THESE PEOPLE ARE HELPFUL AND INSTRUMENTAL IN GENERAL PROGRESS AND ADVAN CEMENTS OF THE PURPOSES OF FEDERATION. 4. THE ORDER OF THE LD . CIT(A) BE CANCELLED AND THAT OF THE A .O . BE RESTORED. 5 . THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD/ ALTER / AMEND GRO UNDS OF APPEAL. 6. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT T HE LD.CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN ALLOWING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE U/S.80P(2)(A)(VI) OF THE I.T. ACT SINCE THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY IS A FEDERATION OF PRIMARY SOCIETIES WHICH ONLY SUPERVISES AND C OORDINATES THE AFFAIRS OF ITS MEMBERS AND CANNOT BE SAID TO BE ENGAG ED IN THE COLLECTIVE DISPOSAL OF THE LABOUR OF ITS MEMBERS WITHIN THE M EANING OF SECTION 80P(2)(A)(VI) OF THE I.T. ACT. FURTHER, THE CIT(A) ALSO W AS NOT JUSTIFIED IN HOLDING THAT ADVERTISEMENT EXPENSES OF RS.2,01,75 0/- ARE INCURRED MAINLY FOR WELCOME/FELICITATION OF MINISTERS, OFFICIALS AT SECRETARIAT AND LOCAL LEADERS ETC WHO ARE HELPFUL AND INSTR UMENTAL IN GENERAL PROGRESS AND ADVANCEMENT OF THE PURPOSE OF THE FEDERATION. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL WHICH HAS BE EN RELIED ON BY THE CIT(A) HAS NOT BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE DEPARTMENT AND THE 6 ITA NO.1397/PN/2015 DEPARTMENT IS IN FURTHER APPEAL. FURTHER, THE DECISION RELIE D ON BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE CASE OF KERALA STATE COOPERATIVE MARKET ING FEDERATION LTD. VS. CIT REPORTED IN 231 ITR 814 IS DISTINGUISHABLE AND NOT APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE. HE ACCORDING LY SUBMITTED THAT THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) BE SET ASIDE AND THE GROUN DS RAISED BY THE REVENUE SHOULD BE ALLOWED. 7. THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE READS AS UNDER : (1) THE RESPONDENT IS A COOPERATIVE SOCIETY PROVIDING VARIOUS SERVICES TO ITS MEMBERS. ONE OF THE MAIN OBJECTS OF RESPONDENT I S TO WORK AS FEDERATION OF SKILLED AND UNSKILLED LABOURS' CO-OP SOCI ETIES AND TO WORK AS LIAISON BETWEEN VARIOUS GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS ON BEHA LF OF THE' MEMBERS OF SOCIETY. THE RESPONDENT HAS FILED A RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING TOTAL INCOME AT NIL ON 30.09.2011 FOR A.Y. 2011-12 AFTER CLAIMING DEDUCTION U/S.80.P(2)(A)(VI) WHICH WAS ACCEPTED U/S.14 3(1). THEREAFTER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER INITIATED THE PROCEEDINGS U/S. 143( 3). (2) THE. ASSESSING OFFICER THEREFORE, EXAMINED THE RETU RN OF RESPONDENT WHO HAD CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S.80P(2)(A)(VI ) AND DISALLOWED THE ADVERTISEMENT EXPENSES AND DISALLOWED BOTH CLAIMS. T HE MATTER WAS THEN CARRIED BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, W HEREIN THE RELIEF HAS BEEN GRANTED TO THE RESPONDENT ON BOTH ACCOUNTS. THE SAME HAS BEEN CHALLENGED BEFORE HON'BLE ITAT, PUNE BENCH, PUNE BY REVENUE. (3) IT IS SUBMITTED THAT HON'BLE PUNE TRIBUNAL HAS DEC IDED ISSUE OF DEDUCTION U/S. 80P(2)(A)(VI), IN FAVOUR OF THE RESPON DENT SINCE 1981 IN ITS OWN CASE IN ITA NO. 1064/PN/1984 DATED 5-5-2006 FOR A.Y. 1980-81. THE ISSUE HAS, THEREAFTER, BEEN CONSISTENTLY DECIDED IN RESPO NDENT'S FAVOUR BY PUNE TRIBUNAL. THE DEPARTMENT HAS FAILED TO BRING AN YTHING NEW ON RECORD FOR THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL ALSO. TRIBUNAL, AFTER FOLL OWING JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF KERALA STATE CO -OPERATIVE MARKETING FEDERATION LTD & OTHERS VS. CIT (231 ITR 841 (SC), AN D VIDE ITS ORDER IN ITA NO. 495/PN/2006 FOR A.Y. 2003-04 DATED 30-6-200 8 AND IN ITA NO.1336/PN/2008 FOR A.Y.2005-06 DATED 28-11-2008 HA S CONFIRMED THE ORDERS OF THE CIT(A) IN ALLOWING THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE. (4) ONE MORE ISSUE IS ALLOWABILITY OF ADVERTISEMENT EXP ENSES INCURRED BY THE RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL. THIS ISSUE IS ALSO COVERED IN RESPONDENT'S OWN CASE FOR A.Y. 2006-07, 2008-09 AND 20 09-10 IN ITA NOS. 62,63 AND 64/PN/2013, WHEREIN, SAME ISSUE WAS DECIDED I N FAVOUR OF RESPONDENT. THE FACTS ARE UNCHANGED EVEN IN THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL AND DEPARTMENT HAS NOT BROUGHT ANYTHING NEW ON RECORD HE RE ALSO. (5) WE, THEREFORE, HUMBLY REQUEST YOUR HONOUR TO KIN DLY ALLOW THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S. 80P(2)(A)(VI) AND ALSO CLAI M FOR ADVERTISEMENT EXPENDITURE BY UPHOLDING ORDER OF CIT(A) BASED ON TH IS WRITTEN SUBMISSION, CASE LAWS AND PREVIOUS ORDERS. 7 ITA NO.1397/PN/2015 8. I HAVE HEARD THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATION AN D CONSIDERED THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. I HAVE ALSO PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. I FIND THE FIRST I SSUE TO BE DECIDED IN THE IMPUGNED APPEAL IS REGARDING THE ALLOWABILITY O F DEDUCTION U/S.80P(2)(A)(VI) OF THE I.T. ACT TO THE ASSESSEE SO CIETY. IT IS THE CASE OF THE REVENUE THAT ASSESSEE IS NOT ENTITLED T O DEDUCTION U/S.80P(2)(A)(VI) OF THE ACT SINCE THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY IS A FED ERATION OF PRIMARY SOCIETIES WHICH ONLY SUPERVISES AND COORDINATES T HE AFFAIRS OF ITS MEMBERS AND CANNOT BE SAID TO BE ENGAGED IN THE CO LLECTIVE DISPOSAL OF THE LABOUR OF ITS MEMBERS WITHIN THE MEANING OF S ECTION 80P(2)(A)(VI) OF THE I.T. ACT. THE SECOND ISSUE IS REGARDING CLAIM OF DEDUCTION IN RESPECT OF ADVERTISEMENT EXPENSES OF RS.2,07,2 50/- OUT OF WHICH ONLY AN AMOUNT OF RS.5,500/- RELATES TO MONTHLY A DVERTISEMENT OF NATIONAL LABOUR FEDERATION WHICH THE AO TREATED AS AT TRIBUTABLE TO BUSINESS ACTIVITY OF THE ASSESSEE. THUS, THE REMAINING EXP ENSES OF RS.2,01,750/- ACCORDING TO THE AO IS NOT ATTRIBUTABLE TO B USINESS BEING IN RESPECT OF FELICITATIONS/GREETINGS FOR INFLUENTIAL PERSONS. 9. I FIND IN APPEAL THE LD.CIT(A) FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF THE TR IBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR PRECEDING YEARS ALLOWED THE C LAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S.80P(2)(A)(VI) AS WELL AS THE DEDUCTION OF ADVERTISE MENT EXPENSES OF RS.2,01,750/-. MERELY BECAUSE THE REVENUE H AS NOT ACCEPTED THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL AND HAS FILED APPEAL BE FORE HONBLE HIGH COURT, THE SAME IN OUR OPINION CANNOT BE A GROUND T O TAKE A DIFFERENT VIEW THAN THE VIEW ALREADY TAKEN BY THE TRIBUNAL ON THIS ISSUE. THEREFORE, IN ABSENCE OF ANY CONTRARY MATERIAL BROU GHT TO MY NOTICE AND CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ALLO WED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE BY FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR S, I FIND NO 8 ITA NO.1397/PN/2015 INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE. ACCORDINGL Y, THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IS UPHELD AND THE GROUNDS RAISED BY T HE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. 10. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 19-08-2016. SD/- ( R.K. PANDA ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PUNE ; DATED : 19 TH AUGUST, 2016. '# $# / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : / BY ORDER , // TRUE COPY // // TRUE COPY // // $ % //UE &' % * / SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY *, / ITAT, PUNE 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT (A) - I, NASHIK 4. THE CIT-I, NASHIK 5. $ %%* , * , SMC BENCH / DR, ITAT, SMC BENCH PUNE; 6. 2 / GUARD FILE.