M/s.Mattannur Range Agriculturist & Tapping Workers Co-op Society, Kannur V. The ITO, Kannur

ITA 274/COCH/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 96713 (ITAT-COCHIN)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-09-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 17-09-2015
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 15-05-2015
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: V R GOPAKUMAR

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH C OCHIN BEFORE S/SHRI B.P. JAIN, AM AND GEORGE GEOR GE K., JM I.T.A. NO. 274/COCH/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11 M/S. MATTANNUR RANGE AGRICULTURIST & TAPPING WORKERS CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY, MATTANNUR, KANNUR-670 101. [PAN: AAAAM 6737F] VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, KANNUR. (ASSESSEE -APPELLANT) (REVENUE-RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY SMT. DIVYA RAVINDRAN, ADV. REVENUE BY SHRI V.R. GOPAKUMAR, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING 17/09/2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 21/09/2015 O R D E R PER B.P.JAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ARISING FROM THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), KOZHIKODE DATED 30/03/2015 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED AS MANY AS 10 GROUNDS OF APPEAL MAINLY FOR DENIAL OF CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S. 80P(2)(A)(VI) AND 80P(2)(A)(III) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. I.T.A. NO.274/COCH/2015 2 3. AS REGARDS THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S. 80P(2)(A) (VI) OF THE ACT, THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF SALE OF TODDY AND THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE YEAR WAS FIL ED CLAIMING DEDUCTION U/S. 80P OF THE ACT WHICH WAS REJECTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IT WAS ARGUED BEFORE THE CIT(A) THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE COLL ECTIVE DISPOSAL OF LABOUR OF ITS MEMBERS. 4. WITH REGARD TO THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S. 80P(2)(A)(III), THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN MARKET ING OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE GROWN BY ITS MEMBERS. AS REGARDS THE ISSUE OF COL LECTIVE DISPOSAL OF LABOUR OF ITS MEMBERS, IN AN IDENTICAL ISSUE IN THE CASE OF ITO, WARD-2, KANNUR VS. M/S. PERAVOOR RANGE KALLU CHETHU VYAVASAYA THOZHILALI SA HAKARANA SANGAM IN I.T.A. NO. 399/COCH/2013 DATED 17/01/2014 FOR THE ASSESSME NT YEAR 2009-10, THE ITAT, COCHIN BENCH HAS HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NO T ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION UNDER 80P(2)(A)(VI) AND SINCE THE FACTUAL MATRIX IS SAME IN THIS CASE, THE CIT(A) DISMISSED THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 5. AS REGARDS THE ALTERNATIVE CLAIM OF THE ASSE SSEE RELATING TO DEDUCTION U/S. 80P(2)(A)(III) OF THE ACT THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENG AGED IN MARKETING OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE GROWN BY ITS MEMBERS, THIS ISSUE WAS REMAND ED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHO FURNISHED HIS REMAND REPORT ON 20/03/2015 WHICH IS REPRODUCED IN PG. 2 AND 3 OF THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). I.T.A. NO.274/COCH/2015 3 6. AFTER CONSIDERING THE ARGUMENTS OF THE LD. C OUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE REMAND REPORT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE, PARA 6 OF THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IS REPRODUCED HEREINBELOW: 6. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSION OF THE LD. CO UNSEL. I HAVE ALSO GONE THROUGH THE REMAND REPORT OF THE ASSESSING OF FICER. THE REMAND REPORT WAS ALSO DISCUSSED WITH THE LD. COU NSEL OF THE ASSESSEE. AS STATED IN THE REMAND REPORT, EVEN TH OUGH THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED THAT THEY ARE MARKETING THE TODDY TAPP ED BY THE MEMBERS FROM THEIR OWN LAND, THE ASSESSEE COULD NO T FURNISH THE ASSESSING OFFICER THE DETAILS OF LAND HOLDING OF S UCH MEMBERS. NEITHER BEFORE ME, THE LD. COUNSEL COULD FURNISH A NY DETAILS OF HOLDINGS OF SUCH MEMBERS. IN VIEW OF THIS, THERE IS NO REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, AND THE ASSESSMENT IS CONFIRMED. 7. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, SMT. DIVYA RAV INDRAN ARGUED THAT THE REMAND REPORT WAS RECEIVED LATE AND THEREFORE, ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY MAY BE GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE FOR SUBMISSION OF THE DETAILS. THE LD. DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, OPPOSED THE SECOND OPPORTUNITY AND RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 8. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSE D THE FACTS OF THE CASE. AS REGARDS DEDUCTION CLAIMED U/S. 80P(2)(A)(VI) OF THE ACT, THE ISSUE IS COVERED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE BY THE DECISION OF THE ITAT, COCHIN IN THE CASE OF ITO, WARD-2, KANNUR VS. M/S. PERAVOOR RANGE KALLU CHETHU VYAVASAYA THOZHILALI SAHAKARANA SANGAM (SUPRA). SI NCE THE FACTS IN THE I.T.A. NO.274/COCH/2015 4 PRESENT CASE ARE IDENTICAL TO THE FACTS IN THE CASE OF ITO, WARD-2, KANNUR VS. M/S. PERAVOOR RANGE KALLU CHETHU VYAVASAYA THOZ HILALI SAHAKARANA SANGAM (SUPRA) FOLLOWING THE SAME, WE DO NOT FIND A NY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) WHO HAS RIGHTLY CONFIRMED THE O RDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 9. AS REGARDS DEDUCTION CLAIMED U/S. 80P(2)(A)(III) OF THE ACT, THE ARGUMENT MADE BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE I S THAT THE REMAND REPORT WAS RECEIVED LATE AND MORE TIME IS REQUIRED TO SUBMIT THE DETAILS. IN THIS REGARD, THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) WAS PASSED ON 30/03/2015 AND EVEN TILL TODAY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT COLL ECTED AND FILED ANY DETAIL IN THE FORM OF PAPER BOOK OR EVEN DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING. ACCORDINGLY, THE REQUEST OF THE LD. AR FOR REMANDIN G THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW IS REJECTED. 10. AS PER THE REMAND REPORT OF THE ASSESSING O FFICER, THE FACTS OF THE ASSESSEE WERE ANALYZED IN DETAIL IN VIEW OF THE DEF INITION OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME AS PER SECTION 2(1A) OF THE ACT AND IN ORDER TO CONSIDER A PRODUCT TO BE AGRICULTURAL, THE OPERATIONS SET OUT IN THE DEFI NITION OF SECTION 2(1A) ARE TO BE CARRIED OUT. AS PER THE DETAILS AND ACCOUNTS FILED, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT CARRIED OUT ANY SUCH ACTIVITIES AND HENCE THE I NCOME FROM THE EXTRACTION AND SALE OF TODDY CANNOT BE TREATED AS AGRICULTURAL . THE RELEVANT PORTION OF I.T.A. NO.274/COCH/2015 5 THE REMAND REPORT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS REPRO DUCED FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE HEREINBELOW: THE ASSESSEE IS NOT IN POSSESSION EITHER OWN AGRIC ULTURAL LAND OR LAND TAKEN ON LEASE. THE ONLY RIGHT OF THE ASSESSEE HAS ON THE COCONUT TREE TO EXTRACT TODDY WHICH IS OBTAINED FROM THE OWNER O F THE TREE ON PAYMENT OF PATTAM (A FIXED AMOUNT PER TREE). NO INTEREST IN THE LAND IS TRANSFERRED TO THE SOCIETY OR TO THE MEMBERS. A LEASE IS PERMISSIBLE ONLY ON AN IMMOVABLE PROPERTY. WHAT THE ASSESSEE H AS OBTAINED IS A MERE LICENSE TO TAP THE TREES AND TAPPING OF THE TR EE ARE NOT ACTIVITIES WHEREBY THE AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE HAS BEEN RAISED. IN THE DECISION RENDERED BY THE FULL BENCH OF THE HONBLE MADRAS HI GH COURT IN CIT VS. YAGAPPA NADAR AIR 1927 IT WAS HELD AS UNDER: INCOME DERIVED FROM TODDY IS AGRICULTURAL INCOME WHEN IT IS RECEIVED BY THE ACTUAL CULTIVATOR, WHETHER OWNER OR LESSEE OF THE LAND ON WHICH THE TREE GROW. IF THE INCOME IS OBTAINED BY A PERSON WHO HAS NOT PRODUCED THE TREES FROM WHICH THE TODDY IS TAP PED,. OR HAS NOT DONE ANY AGRICULTURAL OPERATION WHEREBY THOSE TREE S HAVE BEEN RAISED, IT IS NOT AGRICULTURAL INCOME WITHIN THE M EANING OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY HAS NOT SATISFIED THE CONDITIO NS LAID DOWN IN SECTION 80P(2)(VI) AND 80P(A)(III) AND HENCE THE SO CIETY IS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S. 80P(2)(VI). 11. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PRESEN T CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT SATISFIED THE CONDITIONS AS LAID DOWN IN SECTIO N 80P(2)(A)(VI) AND 80P(2)(A)(III) AND THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE T O PRODUCE ANY DETAILS OF HOLDINGS OF LAND BY ITS MEMBERS. THEREFORE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) WHO HAS RIGHTLY CONFIRMED T HE ACTION OF THE AO. ACCORDINGLY, ALL THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL OF THE ASSES SEE ARE DISMISSED. I.T.A. NO.274/COCH/2015 6 12. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN I.T.A. NO.274/COCH/2015 IS DISMISSED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 21- 09-2015. SD/- SD/- (GEORGE GEORGE K.) (B.P. JAIN) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACC OUNTANT MEMBER PLACE: KOCHI DATED: 21ST SEPTEMBER, 2015 GJ COPY TO: 1. M/S. MATTANNUR RANGE AGRICULTURIST & TAPPING WOR KERS CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY, MATTANNUR, KANNUR-670 101. 2. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, KANNUR. 3. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS), KOZHIKO DE. 4. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, KOZHIKODE. 5. D.R., I.T.A.T.,COCHIN. 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER (ASSISTANT REGISTRAR) I. T.A.T., COCHIN