ITO, Ooty V. The Salisbury Industrial Co. op Tea Factory Ltd., Nilgiris

ITA 1919/CHNY/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 90541 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-07-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 07-07-2015
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 08-07-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DR B NISCHAL
• Assessee Lawyers: G BASKAR

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, CHENNAI . . . , . !'# ! , % !& BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA NO.1919/MDS/2014 ( )( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD I(1), INCOME TAX OFFICE, OOTY. V. M/S THE SALISBURY INDUSTRIAL CO.OP TEA FACTORY LTD., GUDALUR, NILGIRIS. PAN : AAAAT 3695 F (+,/ APPELLANT) (-.+,/ RESPONDENT) +, / 0 / APPELLANT BY : DR. B. NISCHAL, JCIT -.+, / 0 / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI G. BASKAR, ADVOCATE 1 / 2% / DATE OF HEARING : 07.07.2015 3') / 2% / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 10.07.2015 / O R D E R PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THIS APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST TH E ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-I, COIMBAT ORE, DATED 17.04.2014 AND PERTAINS TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11. THE ONLY ISSUE ARISES FOR CONSIDERATION IS WITH REGARD TO DE DUCTION CLAIMED BY 2 I.T.A. NO.1919/MDS/14 THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 80P(2)(A)(II) OF THE INC OME-TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT 'THE ACT'). 2. DR. B. NISCHAL, THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTAT IVE, SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE, AN INDUSTRIAL CO-OPERA TIVE TEA FACTORY, ENGAGED IN THE SALE OF PROCESSED TEA FROM TEA LEAVE S GROWN BY THE MEMBERS OF THE SOCIETY. ACCORDING TO THE LD. D.R., THE PROCESS OF CONVERSION OF GREEN TEA LEAVES INTO BLACK TEA POWER WOULD NOT COME WITHIN THE DEFINITION OF MARKETING. THEREFORE, T HE ASSESSEE IS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80P(2)(A)(III) OF THE ACT. ACCORDING TO THE LD. D.R., MARKETING OF AGRICULTURA L PRODUCE GROWN BY THE MEMBERS OF THE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY ARE ELIG IBLE FOR EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 80P(2)(A)(III) OF THE ACT. IN THIS CASE, THE ASSESSEE IS NOT MARKETING GREEN TEA LEAVES. WHAT W AS MARKETED BY THE ASSESSEE IS A PROCESSED GREEN TEA POWDER WHI CH IS NOT AN AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE. THE CIT(APPEALS), ACCORDING TO THE LD. D.R., FOLLOWED THE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE ASSESSEE 'S OWN CASE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2003-04 TO 2008-09. THE LD. D .R. SUBMITTED THAT THE REVENUE HAS FILED AN APPEAL AGAINST THIS O RDER OF THE TRIBUNAL AND THE HIGH COURT ADMITTED THE SAME. 3. ON THE CONTRARY, SHRI G. BASKAR, THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, SUBMITTED THAT AN IDENTICAL ISSUE WAS CON SIDERED BY THIS 3 I.T.A. NO.1919/MDS/14 TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEE'S OWN CASE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR S 2003-04 TO 2008-09 AND THIS TRIBUNAL, AFTER CONSIDERING THE EN TIRE CASE LAWS ON THE SUBJECT, FOUND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS NO T JUSTIFIED IN REJECTING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ASSESS EE IS ONLY MARKETING THE PROCESSED BLACK TEA AND NOT THE GREEN TEA LEAVES. IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF TH IS TRIBUNAL, ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, THE CIT(APPEALS) HAS RIGHTLY ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EITH ER SIDE AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. AS RIGHTL Y SUBMITTED BY THE LD.COUNSEL, THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE ASSESSEE'S OWN CASE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2003-04 TO 2008-0 9, CONSIDERED AN IDENTICAL ISSUE ELABORATELY AND REJECTED THE OBS ERVATION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED ONLY IN THE SALE OF MANUFACTURED TEA. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DECISION OF THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL, THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION I N SAYING THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ONLY MARKETING PROCESSED TEA POWDER AND NOT THE GREEN TEA LEAVES. MERE PENDENCY OF APPEAL BEFORE T HE HIGH COURT CANNOT BE A REASON TO TAKE DIFFERENT VIEW. THE REV ENUE COULD NOT BRING ON RECORD ANY DISTINGUISHED FACT FROM THE ORD ER OF THE TRIBUNAL 4 I.T.A. NO.1919/MDS/14 IN THE ASSESSEE'S OWN CASE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2003-04 TO 2008-09. THUS, THE ORDER OF THE CIT(APPEALS) IS UP HELD. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISM ISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 10 TH JULY, 2015 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- (. !'# ! ) ( . . . ) (A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY) (N.R.S. GANESAN) % / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /JUDICIAL MEMBER /CHENNAI, 5 /DATED, THE 10 TH JULY, 2015. KRI. / -267 87)2 /COPY TO: 1. +, /APPELLANT 2. -.+, /RESPONDENT 3. 1 92 () /CIT(A)-I, COIMBATORE 4. 1 92 /CIT-II, COIMBATORE 5. 7: -2 /DR 6. ;( < /GF.