ITO, Salem V. Salem District Printers Services Co-operative Limited, Salem

ITA 1430/CHNY/2015

• Counselvise Citation: 143021714 RSA 2015
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-12-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 14-10-2015
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 11-06-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DR B NISCHAL
• Assessee Lawyers: S SRIDHAR

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH, CHENNAI . . . , . !'# ! , % !& BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA NO.1430/MDS/2015 ( )( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD I(1), SALEM. V. M/S SALEM DISTRICT PRINTERS SERVICES CO-OPERATIVE LIMITED, D.NO.20, VARADAPPAN STREET, FORT, SALEM 636 001. PAN : AAATT 6976 A (+,/ APPELLANT) (-.+,/ RESPONDENT) +, / 0 / APPELLANT BY : DR. B. NISCHAL, JCIT -.+, / 0 / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI S. SRIDHAR, ADVOCATE 1 / 2% / DATE OF HEARING : 14.10.2015 3') / 2% / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 18.12.2015 / O R D E R PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THIS APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST T HE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), SALEM, DA TED 31.03.2015 AND PERTAINS TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11. 2 I.T.A. NO.1430/MDS/15 2. THE ONLY ISSUE ARISES FOR CONSIDERATION IS WITH REGARD TO DEDUCTION CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 80P (2)(A)(VI) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT 'THE ACT'). 3. DR. B. NISCHAL, THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTAT IVE, SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A CO-OPERATIVE SOCIE TY AND ITS MEMBERS ARE OWNERS OF THE PRINTING PRESS. THE ASSE SSEE IS COLLECTING ORDERS FOR PRINTING AND DISTRIBUTING THE WORK TO VARIOUS MEMBERS OF THE SOCIETY WHO ARE OWNERS OF PRINTING P RESS. ACCORDING TO THE LD. D.R., THE ASSESSEE IS NOT A LA BOUR CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY. THE ASSESSEE IS COLLECTING ORDERS FROM VA RIOUS SOURCES AND DISTRIBUTING THE WORK OF PRINTING TO THE MEMBER S. REFERRING TO SECTION 80P(2)(A)(VI) OF THE ACT, THE LD. D.R. SUBM ITTED THAT DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80P(2)(A)(VI) OF THE ACT IS ONLY FOR COLLECTIVE DISPOSAL OF THE LABOUR OF ITS MEMBERS AND NOT FOR D OING OR DISTRIBUTING ANY WORK AMONG THE MEMBERS. IN THIS C ASE, ACCORDING TO THE LD. D.R., THE ASSESSEE IS NOT DISPOSING ANY LABOUR OF THE MEMBERS OF THE ASSESSEE-SOCIETY. IN FACT, NO LABOU RER IS MEMBERS OF THE ASSESSEE-SOCIETY. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE-S OCIETY IS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80P(2)(A)(VI) OF THE ACT. 3 I.T.A. NO.1430/MDS/15 4. ON THE CONTRARY, SHRI S. SRIDHAR, THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, SUBMITTED THAT ON IDENTICAL SET OF FACTS, THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE ASSESSEE'S OWN CASE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 19 96-97, 1987- 88 TO 1992-93 IN I.T.A. NO.1704/MDS/2000, 3039/MDS/ 1993 AND 2320 TO 2324/MDS/1997 BY ORDER DATED 11.06.2003, AL LOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. REVENUE, IN FACT, CARRIED T HE MATTER BEFORE THE HIGH COURT AND THE HIGH COURT CONFIRMED THE ORD ER OF THE TRIBUNAL ON IDENTICAL SET OF FACTS. REFERRING TO T HE ORDER OF THE CIT(APPEALS), THE LD.COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT (APPEALS) HAS FOLLOWED THE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL WHICH WAS CONFI RMED BY THE HIGH COURT, THEREFORE, NO INTERFERENCE IS CALLED FOR. 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EITH ER SIDE AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. ADMITTEDLY, THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80P(2)(A)( VI) OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF ITS INCOME. THE ASSESSEE IS NOT A SO CIETY OF LABOURERS. THE ASSESSEE IS DISTRIBUTING WORK AMONG THE MEMBERS WHO ARE OWNERS OF THE PRINTING PRESS. THEREFORE, IT IS OBV IOUS THAT WHAT WAS DISPOSED OF / DISTRIBUTED BY THE ASSESSEE IS THE WO RK OF PRINTING AND NOT THE LABOUR. ON IDENTICAL SET OF FACTS, THE MAD RAS HIGH COURT IN THE ASSESSEE'S OWN CASE IN TAX CASE (APPEAL) NOS.14 7 TO 153 AND 4 I.T.A. NO.1430/MDS/15 221 AND 222 OF 2003 BY AN ORDER DATED 26.09.2006 FO UND THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ELIGIBLE FOR EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 80 P(2)(A)(VI) OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, THE TRIBUNAL DO NOT FIND ANY REASO N TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE LOWER AUTHORITY. ACCORDINGLY, THE ORDER OF THE CIT(APPEALS) IS CONFIRMED. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISM ISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 18 TH DECEMBER, 2015 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- (. !'# ! ) ( . . . ) (A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY) (N.R.S. GANESAN) % / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /JUDICIAL MEMBER /CHENNAI, 5 /DATED, THE 18 TH DECEMBER, 2015. KRI. / -267 87)2 /COPY TO: 1. +, /APPELLANT 2. -.+, /RESPONDENT 3. 1 92 () /CIT(A), SALEM 4. 1 92 /CIT, SALEM. 5. 7: -2 /DR 6. ( ; /GF.