Appeal details
Counselvise Citation
[2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8525 (ITAT-COCHIN)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
Duration Of Justice
11 month(s) 27 day(s)
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date
15-06-2016
Appeal Filed By
Department
Bench Allotted
DB
Next Hearing Date
30-05-2016
Assessment Year
2008-2009
Appeal Filed On
18-06-2015
Judgement Text
ITA NOS.344-346 & 253/COCH/2015 & 340-343/COCH/2015 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN BEFORE S/SHRI B P JAIN, AM & GEORGE GEORGE.K, JM I.T.A. NO. NAME OF THE ASSESSEE (REVENUE APPEAL) REVENUE A.Y. CIT(A) AND THE DATE OF THE ORDER 344/COCH/2015 M/S. KANNUR RANGE KALLU CHETHU VYAVASAYA THOZHILALI SAHAKARANA SANGAM LTD., SOUTH BAZAR, KANNUR-670 002. [PAN:AAAAK 5179P] THE ACIT, CIRCLE- 1, KANNUR. 2008-09 CIT(A), KOZHIKODE 30/03/2015 345/COCH/2015 -DO- -DO- 2009-10 -DO- 346/COCH/2015 -D0- -DO- 2011-12 -DO- 253/COCH/2015 -DO- ( ASSESSEE APPEAL) -DO- 2010-11 -DO- S.P. NO.47/COCH/2015 -DO- -DO- 2010-11 -DO- 340/COCH/2015 M/S. SREEKANDAPURAM AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS & TODDY TAPPERS CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD., P.O. MAYYIL, KANNUR-670 602. [PAN :AAHAS 3010J] (REVENUE APPEAL) -DO- 2008-09 -DO- 341/COCH/2015 -DO- -DO- 2009-10 -DO- 342/COCH/2015 -DO- -DO- 2010-11 -DO- 343/COCH/2015 -DO- -DO- 2011-12 -DO- PAN NO. REVENUE BY SMT. LAKSHMI BAI, SR. DR ASSESSEE BY SHRI T.M. SREEDHARAN, SR. ADV. DATE OF HEARING 01/06/2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 15/06/2016 ITA NOS.344-346 & 253/COCH/2015 & 340-343/COCH/2015 2 ORDER PER BENCH: THESE 8 APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEES AND THE REVE NUE IN THE CASE OF TWO ASSESSEES ARISE FROM THE DIFFERENT ORDERS OF THE LD . CIT(A) AS PER DETAILS GIVEN ABOVE. 2. FIRST OF ALL WE SHALL TAKE UP THE APPEALS OF T HE REVENUE IN THE CASE OF KANNUR RANGE KALLU CHETHU VYAVASAYA THOZHILALLI SAHAKARANA SANGAM LTD. IN I.T.A. NOS. 344-346/COCH/2015 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2008-09, 2009-10 AND 2011-12 AND THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN I.T.A. NO. 253/COCH/2 015 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 AS UNDER AND OUR ORDER HEREINBELOW SHALL B E IDENTICALLY APPLICABLE TO THE REVENUES APPEALS IN THE CASE OF SREEKANDAPURA M AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS & TODDY TAPPERS CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD. IN I.T.A. N OS. 340-343/COCH/2015 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 AND 2011 -12. 2.A) IN ALL THE AFORESAID FOUR APPEALS, THE ISSUE RAISED RELATES TO THE DEDUCTION CLAIMED U/S. 80P2(A)(III) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 19 61 AS A CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY ENGAGED IN MARKETING OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE GROWN BY ITS MEMBERS. THE LD. CIT(A) IN THE APPEALS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 200 8-09, 2009-10 AND 2011-12, ACCEPTED THE CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION AND ALLOWED THE AS SESSEES APPEALS BY HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY SATISFIED THE REQ UIREMENT OF SEC. 80P2(A)(III) AS ITA NOS.344-346 & 253/COCH/2015 & 340-343/COCH/2015 3 A SOCIETY ENGAGED IN MARKETING OF AGRICULTURAL PROD UCE GROWN BY ITS MEMBERS. THE DEPARTMENT HAS COME IN APPEAL AGAINST THE ABOVE ORDER BY CONTESTING THE ABOVE FINDING OF THE LD. CIT(A). 3. A) IN THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11, THE DENIAL OF EXEMPTION UNDER THE ABOVE SUB CLAUSE ON THE GROUND THAT THE SOCIETY FAILED TO FILE ITS RETURN OF INCOME EITHER U/S. 139(1) OR 139(4) OR IN PURSUANCE OF NOTICE ISSUED U/S. 142(1) OR U/S. 148, IS CONTESTED. IN THE ABOVE ORDER, THE CIT(A) FOUND TH AT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED TIME EITHER U/S. 139(1 ) OR 139(4) OR IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S. 142(1)/148. ON THAT GROUND, THE LD. CIT(A) DECLINED TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFFICER. B) THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FILED THE STAY PETITION, W HICH IS REJECTED, SINCE WE ARE DISPOSING OF THE APPEAL ITSELF BY THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER. 4. THE ASSESSEE IS A CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY ENGAGE D IN THE BUSINESS OF SALE OF TODDY. FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09, THE RETURN OF INCOME WAS FILED ON 31.03.2010 IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE U/S. 148. SIM ILAR RETURNS WERE FILED FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 ON 31.03.2012 IN RESPONSE T O THE NOTICE U/S. 148. FOR THE AY 2010-11, RETURN OF INCOME WAS FILED ON 31.03.201 2 AND FOR THE AY 2011-12, RETURN OF INCOME WAS FILED ON 28/09/2012. IN ALL T HESE RETURNS, THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S. 80P ON THE ENTIRE INCOME. T HE ASSESSEE IS A CO- OPERATIVE SOCIETY ENGAGED IN SALE OF TODDY. TODDY IS TAPPED FROM COCONUT TREES BELONGING TO THE MEMBERS OF THE SOCIETY. THE MEMBERS OF THE SOCIETY ARE TODDY TAPPERS. THE OBJECTIVE OF THE SOCIETY AS PER ITS BYE-LAW IS TO MARKET TODDY ITA NOS.344-346 & 253/COCH/2015 & 340-343/COCH/2015 4 BROUGHT BY ITS MEMBERS. THE MEMBERS OF THE SOCIETY ARE ALSO WORKING AS EMPLOYEES OF THE SOCIETY. THE SOCIETY RUNS TODDY SH OPS UNDER LICENSE OBTAINED FROM THE STATE EXCISE DEPARTMENT WITHIN THE KANNUR EXCISE RANGE. THE MEMBERS ARE PAID COMPENSATION BY WAY OF WAGES DEPENDING ON THE QUANTITY OF TODDY SUPPLIED BY THEM TO THE SOCIETY. IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT ACCEPT THAT TODDY IS AN AGRICULTURAL PRODUC E. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER, TODDY DID NOT SATISFY THE DEFINI TION OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME AS DEFINED IN SECTION 2(1)(A) OF THE ACT. ACCORDING T O THE ASSESSING OFFICER, IN ORDER TO CONSIDER A PRODUCE TO BE AGRICULTURAL, THE VARIOUS OPERATIONS, SUCH AS FILLING OF LAND, SOWING OF SEEDS, MANUVERING ETC. A RE TO BE CARRIED OUT. THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT CARRIED OUT ANY SUCH OPERATIONS. H ENCE THE INCOME FROM EXTRACTION AND SALE OF TODDY WAS NOT TREATED AS FRO M AGRICULTURAL OPERATIONS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO DID NOT ACCEPT THE PRINCIPLE OF LAW AS LAID DOWN IN THE FULL BENCH DECISION OF THE HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN CIT VS. SHRI YAGAPPA NADAR (AIR 1927) WHERE IT WAS HELD THAT THE INCOME DERIVE D FROM TODDY IS AGRICULTURAL INCOME. FINALLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HELD THAT TO DDY OBTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE IS NOT AN AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE AND THE MARKETING OF WH ICH CANNOT BE TREATED AS MARKETING OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE AND HENCE THE CLA IM U/S. 80P(2)(A)(III) WAS DENIED IN RESPECT OF THE ABOVE FOUR ASSESSMENT YEAR S. 5. THE LD. CIT(A) AFTER EXAMINING THE FACTS OF T HE CASE AND CONSIDERING THE GROUNDS URGED BEFORE HIM BY THE ASSESSEE AND ARGUME NT NOTE AND THE ITA NOS.344-346 & 253/COCH/2015 & 340-343/COCH/2015 5 EVIDENCE RELIED ON BY THE ASSESSEE CALLED FOR A REM AND REPORT FROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN RESPECT OF THE ASSESSMENT YEAR S 2011-12. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FURNISHED REMAND REPORT ON 23.03.2015. THE LD. CIT(A) CONSIDERED THE ELIGIBILITY OF THE ASSESSEE FOR DEDUCTION U/S. 80P( 2)(A)(III). HE REFERRED TO THE REMAND REPORT FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER V IDE HIS REPORT DATED 16.03.2015. THE REPORT REGARDING THE MARKETING OF TODDY IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER: 80P(2)(A)(III) THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY HAS PUT IN AN ADDITIONAL GRO UND BEFORE CIT(A) THAT ITS INCOME IS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S. 80P(2)(A)(III ) SINCE THE SOCIETY IS ENGAGED IN MARKETING OF THE AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE GROWN BY I TS MEMBERS. (A) ANY RENT OR REVENUE DERIVED FROM LAND WHICH IS SITUATED IN INDIA AND IS USED FOR AGRICULTURAL PURPOSE; (B) ANY INCOME DERIVED FROM SUCH LAND BY (I) AGRICULTURE; OR (II) THE PERFORMANCE BY A CULTIVATOR OR RECEIVER OF RENT-IN-KIND OF ANY PROCESS ORDINARILY EMPLOYED BY A CULTIVATOR OR RECEIVER OF RENT-IN-KIND TO RENDER THE PRODUCE RAISED OR RECEIVED BY HIM FIT TO BE TAKEN T O MARKET; OR (III) THE SALE BY A CULTIVATOR OR RECEIVER OF RENT- IN-KIND OF THE PRODUCE RAISED OR RECEIVED BY HIM IN RESPECT OF WHICH NO PROCESS HAS BEEN PERFORMED OTHER THAN A PROCESS OF THE NATURE DESCRIBED IN PARAGRAPH (II) OF THIS SUB-CLAUSE. ACCORDINGLY, THE BASIC OPERATIONS TO PRODUCE THE AG RICULTURAL INCOME BY CULTIVATION ARE FILLING OF LAND, SOWING OF SEEDS, M ANURING ETC. IN ORDER TO CONSIDER A PRODUCT TO BE AGRICULTURAL, THE ABOVE OP ERATIONS ARE TO BE CARRIED OUT. AS PER THE DETAILS AND ACCOUNTS FILED, THE AS SESSEE HAS NOT CARRIED OUT ANY SUCH ACTIVITIES. HENCE, THE INCOME FROM THE EX TRACTION AND SALE OF TODDY CANNOT BE TREATED AS AGRICULTURAL. ITA NOS.344-346 & 253/COCH/2015 & 340-343/COCH/2015 6 THE ASSESSEE IS NOT IN POSSESSION OF EITHER OWN AGR ICULTURAL 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 OF 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 HAS OBTAINED IS A MERE LICENSE TO TAP THE TREES AND TAPPING OF THE TREE ARE NOT ACTIVITIES WHEREBY THE AGRICULTURA L PRODUCE HAS BEEN RAISED. IN THE DECISION RENDERED BY THE FULL BENCH OF THE HON BLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN CIT VS. YAGAPPA NADAR AIR 1927 IT WAS HELD AS UNDER : NCOME DERIVED FROMTODDY IS AGRICULTURAL INCOME WHE N IT IS RECEIVED BY THE ACTUAL CULTIVATOR, WHETHER OWNER OR LESSEE OF THE L AND ON WHICH THE TREE GROW. IF THE INCOME IS OBTAINED BY A PERSON WHO HAS NOT P RODUCED THE TREES FROM WHICH THE TODDY IS TAPPED. OR HAS NOT DONE ANY AGR ICULTURAL OPERATION WHEREBY THOSE TREES HAVE BEEN RAISED, IT IS NOT AGR ICULTURAL INCOME WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE ACT. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DECISION OF THE TODDY OBTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE IS NOT AN AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE AND THE MARKETING OF WHICH CAN NOT BE TREATED AS MARKETING OF AN AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE. AY 2011-12 SL. NO. NO. OF MEMBERS NO. OF PERSONS ENGAGED IN THE TAPPING NO. OF MEMBERS HAVING OWN TREES TOTAL AREA OF AGRICULTURAL LAND OWNED BY THE MEMBERS NO. OF OWN TREES TAPPED DURING THE YEAR TOTAL WAGES PAID 1 636 498 207 3845 974 91331219 FROM THE ABOVE, IT IS EVIDENT THAT FOR THE AY 2011- 12 OUT OF THE TOTAL NUMBER OF MEMBERS 636, ONLY 498 MEMBERS ARE ACTIVELY ENGAGED IN THE TODDY TAPPING. OUT OF THE636 MEMBERS ONLY 207 MEMBERS ARE HAVING S TATED TO BE OWN LANDED PROPERTIES AND TAPPING COCONUT TREES GROWN B Y THEM. IT IS FOUND THAT ONLY 32.54% OF MEMBERS HAVING OWN LANDED PROPERTIES AND ONLY TO THE EXTENT CAN BE CONSIDERED AS THE AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE GROWN BY ITS MEMBERS. APART FROM THE ABOVE, OUT OF THE TOTAL TREES OF 3845 FOR WHICH PATTAMFIXED AMOUNT PER TREE PAID BY THE SOCIETY ONLY 974 TREES ARE OWN ED AND GROWN BY THE MEMBERS OF THE SOCIETY, I.E., OUT OF THE TOTAL TREE S FOR WHICH PATTAM PAID ONLY 25.33% OF THE TREES ARE OWNED BY ITS MEMBERS. ITA NOS.344-346 & 253/COCH/2015 & 340-343/COCH/2015 7 5.2 THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MENTIONED THAT TOTAL NUMBER OF MEMBERS ARE 636 OUT OF WHICH 498 MEMBERS ARE ENGAGED IN TAPPING. H E HAS ALSO MENTIONED THAT ONLY 207 MEMBERS ARE HAVING OWN LAND, AND THAT PATTAM (RENT) HAS BEEN PAID IN CASE OF 3845 TREES OF WHICH 974 TREES BELONG TO THE 207 MEMBERS HAVING OWN LAND. 6. AFTER ANALYZING THE REMAND REPORT OF THE ASSES SING OFFICER, THE LD. CIT(A) FOUND THAT ACTUALLY MEMBERSHIP NUMBER OF THE SOCIET Y IS 636 AS PER THE LIST OF MEMBERS OF WHOM 498 MEMBERS ARE HAVING THEIR OWN LA ND, AS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE REMAND PROCEEDINGS. THESE 498 MEMBERS HAVE 3845 TREES ON THEIR OWN LAND. THE LIST FURTHER SHOWED THAT OU T OF 3845 TREES, RECEIPTS IN THE CASE OF 974 TREES WERE CONSIDERED AS SPECIMEN ON TE STED BASIS. IT IS SEEN FROM THE DETAILS THAT THE TOTAL QUANTITY TRADED BY THE A SSESSEE IS 19,85,461 LTRS., WHICH HAS ENTIRELY COME FROM 498 MEMBERS HAVING 3845 TREE S ON THEIR OWN LAND. IN VIEW OF THIS, 100% OF THE ASSESSEES INCOME FROM TO DDY MARKETING WAS HELD TO BE ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S. 80P(2)(A)(III). ON THA T BASIS, THE LD. CIT(A) HELD THAT THE INCOME FROM TODDY MARKETING CLAIMED BY THE ASSE SSEE IS FULLY ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S. 80P(2)(A)(III) OF THE ACT AND THE AP PEALS WERE ALLOWED. IN THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL AND THE WRITTEN SUBMISS IONS MADE BY THE LEARNED SR. AR DATED 10.12.2015, THE CONTENTION IS AS REGARDS THE ADMISSIBILITY OF THE CLAIM U/S. 80P(2)(A)(III) FOR THE INCOME FROM M ARKETING OF TODDY, WHICH IS CLAIMED AS AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE. IT IS CONTENDED BY THE SR. AR THAT ACCORDING TO THE SPIRIT OF SEC. 80P(2)(A)(III), THE SECTION IS L IMITED TO THE INCOME FROM MARKETING OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE, WHICH IS GROWN BY THE MEMB ERS. ACCORDING TO HIM, ITA NOS.344-346 & 253/COCH/2015 & 340-343/COCH/2015 8 TODDY IS AN INTOXICATED DRINK CREATED BY FERMENTING SAP OF THE FRUIT STEMS OF COCONUT OR OTHER PALM TREES. IT IS NOT PER SE AN A GRICULTURAL PRODUCE. TODDY IS NOT GROWN, BUT CREATED. THE WORD GROWN, SHOULD BE CONSTRUED TO MEAN THAT THE BENEFIT OUT OF THE SECTION WILL FLOW ONLY TO PE RSONS WHO DESERVE IT, I.E., THE GROWERS OR REAL AGRICULTURISTS. 7. ACCORDING TO PLAIN READING OF SECTION 80P(2)( A)(III), IF A CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY EARNS INCOME FROM MARKETING OF THE AGRICULTURAL PRO DUCE GROWN BY ITS MEMBERS, DEDUCTION IN RESPECT OF THE PROFITS AND GAINS OF BU SINESS WHICH ARE ATTRIBUTABLE TO THAT MARKETING ACTIVITY WOULD BE AVAILABLE UNDER THE PROVISION. THE QUESTION TO BE CONSIDERED IS WHETHER TODDY IS AN AGRICULTURA L PRODUCE. IN THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT IN BUD HEWAL CO-OPERATIVE SUGAR MILLS LTD. VS. CIT (2009) 315 ITR 351 (FB), THE QU ESTION CONSIDERED WAS REGARDING THE CONSTRUCTION OF SECTION 80P(2)(A)(III) AND MORE SPECIFICALLY, THE GRANT OF DEDUCTION FROM THE PROFITS MADE BY SOCIETIES BY MAR KETING OF THE AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE GROWN BY ITS MEMBERS. IN THAT CASE, THE QUE STION FOR CONSIDERATION WAS WHETHER THE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY WHICH PRODUCED SUG AR FROM SUGAR CANE GROWN BY ITS MEMBERS WITH THE AID OF POWER IS ENTIT LED FOR DEDUCTION U/S. 80P(20(A)(III). AFTER CONSIDERING THE LEGISLATIVE H ISTORY OF SUB-CLAUSE (III) AND (V) OF SECTION 80P(2)(A) OF THE ACT, 1961, THE PURPOSE UND ERLYING ENACTING THE SAME, WAS EXAMINED. IN THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1922, CO-OPERA TIVE SOCIETIES ENJOYED EXEMPTION FROM THE PROFITS AND GAINS DERIVED FROM M ARKETING OF AGRICULTURAL ITA NOS.344-346 & 253/COCH/2015 & 340-343/COCH/2015 9 PRODUCE OF THEIR MEMBERS. THE SAME PROVISION WAS CO NTINUED IN INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 VIDE SECTION 81 SUB-SECTION (1) CLAUSE (C ) WHICH READS AS UNDER:- (C) A SOCIETY ENGAGED IN THE MARKETING OF THE AGRI CULTURAL PRODUCE OF ITS MEMBERS. 8. FINANCE (NO. 2) ACT, 1967 AMENDED THE FINANCE ACT, 1961 W.E.F. 1 ST APRIL, 1968 WHEREIN SECTION 80P WAS INTRODUCED BY REPLACIN G SECTION 81(1) WHICH PROVIDED FOR DEDUCTION WITH RESPECT TO THE INCOME O F CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ENGAGED IN MARKETING OF THE AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE O F ITS MEMBERS. SUB-CLAUSE (III) OF SECTION 80P(2)(A) CAME UP FOR CONSIDERATIO N BEFORE THE HONBLE APEX COURT IN ASSAM CO-OPERATIVE APEX MARKETING SOCIETY LTD. VS. ADDITIONAL CIT (1993) 113 CTR (SC) 58 : (1993) 201 ITR 338 (SC) WH EREIN IT WAS RECORDED THAT THE EXPRESSION AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE OF ITS MEMBERS MU ST BE HELD TO MEAN THE AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE WHICH WAS PRODUCED BY ITS MEMB ERS. BASED ON THIS DECISION, THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA IN CIT VS. KERAL A STATE CO-OPERATIVE MARKETING FEDERATION LTD. : (1993) 115 CTR (KER.) 2 18: (1994) 209 ITR 319 (KER) HELD THAT THE EXEMPTION WAS NOT AVAILABLE TO THE ST ATE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY WHERE THE AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE WAS NOT PRODUCED BY ITS MEMBERS., BUT BY MEMBERS OF PRIMARY SOCIETIES. HOWEVER, ON APPEAL, A BENCH OF THREE HONBLE JUDGES OF THE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF KERALA STAT E CO-OPERATIVE MARKETING FEDERATION LTD. VS. CIT : (1998) 147 CTR (SC) 29 : (1998) 231 ITR 814 (SC) WHILE ITA NOS.344-346 & 253/COCH/2015 & 340-343/COCH/2015 10 OVERRULING ITS EARLIER DECISION IN ASSAM CO-OPERATI VE APEX MARKETING SOCIETY LTDS CASE, OBSERVED THAT THE SOCIETY ENGAGED IN TH E MARKETING OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE OF ITS MEMBERS WOULD NOT MEAN ONLY SUCH SOC IETIES WHICH DEAL WITH THE PRODUCE RAISED BY THE MEMBERS WHO ARE INDIVIDUA LS BUT ALSO DEALT WITH THE MEMBER SOCIETY, WHO MAY HAVE PURCHASED SUCH GOODS F ROM THE AGRICULTURISTS. 9. SECTION 80P(2)(A)(III) WAS RETROSPECTIVELY AM ENDED FROM 1 ST APRIL, 1968 BY IT SECOND AMENDMENT ACT, 1998 WITH A VIEW TO RESTRICT THE EXEMPTION TO THE PROFITS AND GAINS DERIVED FROM THE MARKETING OF AG RICULTURAL PRODUCE GROWN BY ITS MEMBERS. THE VALIDITY OF THE AFORESAID AME NDMENT WAS UPHELD BY THE HONBLE APEX COURT IN NATIONAL AGRICULTURAL CO-OPER ATIVE MARKETING FEDERATION OF INDIA LTD. AND ANOTHER VS. UNION OF I NDIA AND OTHERS : (2003) 1891 CTR (SC) 1 EQUIVALENT TO (2003) 260 ITR 548 (SC). THE HONBLE APEX COURT WHILE CONSIDERING THE REASONS FOR AMENDMENT REFERRED TO C LAUSE (6) OF THE STATEMENT OF OBJECTS AND REASONS AND THE INTENTION BEHIND AME NDING THE PROVISION BY THE WORDS OF ITS MEMBERS BY THE WORDS GROWN BY I TS MEMBERS. ACCORDING TO THE STATEMENT OF OBJECTS AND REASONS, THE AMENDM ENT WAS NECESSITATED IN ORDER TO RESTRICT THE DEDUCTION TO THE PROFITS DERI VED BY A CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY ENGAGED IN THE MARKETING OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE GR OWN BY ITS MEMBERS. 10. NOW THE FURTHER QUESTION TO BE CONSIDERED IS WH ETHER TODDY IS AN AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE. TODDY IS TAPPED FROM COCONUT TREES GROWN BY THE ITA NOS.344-346 & 253/COCH/2015 & 340-343/COCH/2015 11 MEMBERS. ACCORDING TO THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY TH E KERALA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY, COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE, PADANAKKAD P. O., KASARAGOD DISTRICT DATED 19.5.2014 TODDY IS A NATURALLY FERMENTED COCONUT P ALM SAP AND IS AN AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE. 11. ADMITTEDLY COCONUT TREE IS AN AGRICULTURAL TR EE AND TODDY IS TAPPED FROM THE STEMS OF THE COCONUT TREE. THE STEMS GROW INTO COCONUT WHICH IS AN AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE, JUST AS SUGAR, MADE OUT OF SU GARCANE, IS AN AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE. TODDY IS AN AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MADE OUT OF STEMS OF COCONUT TREE. TODDY IS PRODUCED OUT OF COCONUT TREE AND THE SAME IS AN AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE. WHEN THE TREES ARE GROWN BY THE MEMBERS F ROM WHICH TODDY IS TAPPED, TODDY IS AN AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE TAKEN FROM TREES GROWN BY THE MEMBERS. IN THE AFORESAID JUDGMENT OF THE FULL BEN CH OF THE P&H HIGH COURT, REFERENCE WAS MADE TO THE JUDGMENT IN ADDL. CIT VS. RYOTS AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE CO-OPERATIVE MARKETING SOCIETY LTD. (1978) 115 ITR 709 (KAR.). IN THAT JUDGMENT, THE HONBLE HIGH COURT WAS CONSIDERING TH E CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WHO IS ENGAGED IN THE MARKETING OF RICE OBTAINED FR OM PADDY GROWN BY ITS MEMBERS, AFTER HULLING WITH THE AID OF POWER. SIMI LARLY, THE ASSESSEE HAD EXTRACTED OIL DERIVED FROM GROUNDNUT GROWN BY ITS M EMBERS AFTER CONVERTING IT INTO OIL IN ITS EXPELLER RUN BY POWER. THE HONBLE DIVISION BENCH HELD THAT RICE OBTAINED FROM PADDY CULTIVATED BY THE MEMBERS AND G ROUNDNUT OIL DERIVED FROM THE GROUNDNUT PLANTS GROWN BY THE MEMBERS WERE AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE ITA NOS.344-346 & 253/COCH/2015 & 340-343/COCH/2015 12 GROWN BY THE MEMBERS. BASED ON THE PRINCIPLES LAI D DOWN IN THE ABOVE JUDGMENTS, IN ORDER TO ASCERTAIN WHETHER THE COMMOD ITY IS AN AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE AND WHETHER SUCH AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE IS GR OWN BY ITS MEMBERS, WHAT IS TO BE CONSIDERED IS THAT THE COMMODITY MARK ETED SHOULD HAVE A DIRECT NEXUS TO THE AGRICULTURAL OPERATIONS AND SUCH COMMO DITY SHOULD BE DERIVED FROM THE AGRICULTURAL OPERATIONS OF THE MEMBERS OF THE SOCIETY AND SUCH PRODUCE IS MARKETED BY THE SOCIETY. 12. THE LEARNED SR. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ALSO RELIED UPON THE JUDGMENT OF THE CONSTITUTION BENCH OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN PADMASUNDARA RAO (DECEASED) & OTHERS VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU & OTHER S : (2002) 176 CTR 104 EQUIVALENT TO (2002) 255 ITR 147 AND SUBMITTED THAT WHILE INTERPRETING A STATUTE, THE LEGISLATIVE INTENTION MUST BE FOUND IN THE WORD S USED BY THE LEGISLATURE ITSELF. LEGISLATIVE CASUS OMISSUS CANNOT BE SUPPLI ED BY JUDICIAL INTERPRETATIVE PROCESS EXCEPT IN CASE OF CLEAR NECESSITY AND WHEN REASON FOR IT IS FOUND IN THE FOUR CORNERS OF THE STATUTE ITSELF. GOING BY THE OB JECT OF SECTION 80P(2)(A)(III), PROFITS OF THE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY ENGAGED IN THE MARKETING OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE WHICH IS GROWN BY THE MEMBERS OF THE SOCIET Y IS EXEMPTED. IT IS NECESSARY TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT, THE SOURCE FROM WHI CH TODDY IS PRODUCED. TODDY IS TAPPED FROM THE TREE AND TREES ARE GROWN B Y THE MEMBERS. SUCH TODDY IS TO BE MARKETED, FOR WHICH THE SOCIETY IS F ORMED. AS SUCH, THE INCOME ITA NOS.344-346 & 253/COCH/2015 & 340-343/COCH/2015 13 OF THE SOCIETY FROM MARKETING OF TODDY AS IN THE PR ESENT CASE, IS ELIGIBLE FOR EXEMPTION/DEDUCTION U/S. 80P(2)(A)(III) OF THE ACT. 13. THE PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN SEC. 80P(2)(A)(II I) CAME TO BE INTERPRETED BY DIFFERENT HONBLE HIGH COURTS WITH REFERENCE TO DIF FERENT KINDS OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE, BEFORE AND AFTER THE AMENDMENT OF SEC. 80P BY THE INCOME TAX 2 ND AMENDMENT ACT, 1998. WHILE THE EXEMPTION AS PER C L. 80P(2)(A)(III) WAS WITH RESPECT TO THE PROFITS AND GAINS DERIVED FROM MARKE TING OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE OF THE MEMBERS OF THE SOCIETY, BEFORE THE AFORESAID AMENDMENT, MARKETING OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE OF ITS MEMBERS WAS STIPULATED AS THE CONDITION FOR GRANTING EXEMPTION. AFTER THE AMENDMENT OF 1998, T HE MARKETING ACTIVITY WAS RESTRICTED TO AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE GROWN BY ITS MEM BERS. IN OTHER WORDS, AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MUST BE GROWN BY ITS MEMBERS. IN OTHER WORDS, AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MUST BE GROWN BY MEMBERS OF T HE SOCIETY. BEFORE THE AMENDMENT, THE EMPHASIZE WAS ON THE WORDS PRODUCE OF ITS MEMBERS. THE PROCESS NECESSARY FOR MARKETING OF AGRICULTURAL PRO DUCE WAS PERMISSIBLE. 14 . THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT IN CIT VS. KARJAN CO-OPERATIVE COTTON SALE GINNING & PRESSING SOCIETY LTD. (1981) 129 ITR 0821) HELD THAT A CO- OPERATIVE SOCIETY ENGAGED IN GINNING AND PRESSING O F COTTON RECEIVED FROM ITA NOS.344-346 & 253/COCH/2015 & 340-343/COCH/2015 14 INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS AND SOCIETY MEMBERS AND SELLING THE SAME WAS HELD TO BE ELIGIBLE FOR EXEMPTION U/S. 80P(2)(A)(III) BEFORE T HE AMENDMENT OF 1998. 15. IN ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. RYOTS AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE CO- OPERATIVE MARKETING SOCIETY LTD. (1978) 115 ITR 070 9, IT WAS HELD THAT WHERE A SOCIETY MARKETED CERTAIN QUANTITY OF RICE AFTER HUL LING IT IN ITS EXPELLER WITH THE AID OF POWER, THAT CANNOT DEPRIVE THE ASSESSEE OF T HE EXEMPTION U/S. 81(I)(C) OF THE ACT. PADDY WAS GROWN BY THE MEMBERS AND AFT ER PROCESSING THE SAME INTO RICE, RICE WAS MARKETED BY THE ASSESSEE-SOCIET Y. 16. IN CIT VS HARYANA STATE CO-OPERATIVE SUPPLY & MARKETING FEDERATION LTD. (1990) 182 ITR 00053) IT WAS HELD THAT THE ONLY CON DITION FOR CLAIMING EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 80P(2)(A)(III) WAS THAT THE INCOME SH OULD BE DERIVED FROM MARKETING OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE WHICH SHOULD BE O WNED BY THE MEMBERS. THE CONTENTION THAT ONLY THE AGRICULTURAL COMMODITY PRODUCED BY ITS MEMBERS THEMSELVES WAS HELD TO BE NOT TENABLE. IT WAS HELD THAT MEMBERS OF THE SOCIETY SHOULD THEMSELVES PRODUCE THE AGRICULTURAL COMMODITIES. THE ABOVE JUDGMENT WAS RENDERED BEFORE THE AMENDMENT, 1998. 17. IN MEENACHIL RUBBER MARKETING & PROCESSING CO-O PERATIVE SOCIETY, REPORTED IN (1992) 193 ITR 0108, THE HONBLE HIGH C OURT OF KERALA WAS DEALING WITH MARKETING OF SHEET RUBBER PRODUCED BY ITS MEMB ERS. IT WAS HELD THAT THE ITA NOS.344-346 & 253/COCH/2015 & 340-343/COCH/2015 15 OBJECT OF THE EXEMPTION U/S. 80P(2)(A)(III) SHOULD BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT WHILE DECIDING THE CLAIM FOR EXEMPTION U/S. 80P(2)(A)(III ). IT WAS HELD THAT THE ONLY QUESTION THAT HAS TO BE CONSIDERED IS WHETHER SEC. 80P(2)(A)(III) IS APPLICABLE TO A CASE WHERE THE MEMBERS OF THE SOCIETY HAVE SOLD R AW-LATEX TO THE CO- OPERATIVE SOCIETY AND THE SOCIETY PROCESSED IT AND EFFECTED SALES THEREAFTER. IF A CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY EARNS INCOME FROM THE MARKE TING OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE OF ITS MEMBERS, THEN THE PROFITS AND GAINS OF BUSINESS ATTRIBUTABLE TO THAT MARKETING ACTIVITY, WOULD BE AVAILABLE AS A DE DUCTION U/S. 80P(2)(A)(III). WHAT IS EXEMPTED IS A PROFIT AND GAINS OF THE BUSIN ESS ACTIVITY OF MARKETING. IN THAT CASE, THE SOCIETY ENGAGED IN MARKETING LATEX B ROUGHT BY ITS MEMBERS AND PROCESSED THE SAME BY CENTRIFUGAL METHOD AND SO LD IT. IT WAS HELD THAT THE SOCIETY WAS ENTITLED TO GET RELIEF U/S. 80P(2)( A)(III). 18. THE PRINCIPLES GOVERNING THE CLAIM FOR EXEMPTI ON U/S. 80P(2)(A)(III) WITH REFERENCE TO THE PROVISION AS IT STOOD BEFORE AND A FTER THE AMENDMENTS REFERRED TO HEREIN WOULD SUPPORT THE CLAIM OF THE A SSESSEE FOR EXEMPTION U/S. 80P(2)(A)(III) FOR THE INCOME DERIVED FROM MARKETI NG OF TODDY, WHICH IS PRODUCED BY ITS MEMBERS BY TAPPING COCONUT TREES GR OWN BY THEM. WE HAVE ALREADY HELD THAT THE TODDY IS AN AGRICULTURAL PROD UCE OBTAINED FROM COCONUT TREE. ACCORDINGLY, THE APPEALS IN I.T.A. NOS. 344-3 46/COCH/2015 FILED BY THE DEPARTMENT AGAINST THE ASSESSMENTS FOR ASSESSMENT Y EARS 2008-09, 2009-10 AND 2011-12 ARE DISMISSED BY CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF TH E LD. CIT(A) DATED ITA NOS.344-346 & 253/COCH/2015 & 340-343/COCH/2015 16 30/03/2015. THE APPEAL IN I.T.A. NO. 253/COCH/2015 FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 AGAINST THE ORDER OF TH E LD. CIT(A) DATED 30-03- 2015 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 IS ALLOWED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY REVERSING THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). THUS ALL TH E FOUR APPEALS ARE DISPOSED OF ACCORDINGLY. 19. NEXT WE SHALL TAKE UP THE APPEALS IN I.T.A. NO S. 340 TO 343/COCH/2015 IN THE CASE OF M/S. SREEKANDAPURAM AGRICULTURAL PRODUC TS & TODDY TAPPERS CO- OP SOCIETY LTD. ALL THE FOUR APPEALS ARE FILED BY T HE DEPARTMENT AND RELATED TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09, 2009-10 AND 2010-11 AN D 2011-12. THE ISSUE ARISING IN THESE FOUR APPEALS ARE COMMON AND RELATE TO THE DEDUCTION U/S. 80P(2)(A)(III) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 BY THE A SSESSEE- SOCIETY WHICH IS ENGAGED IN MARKETING OF TODDY TAPPED BY THE MEMBERS OF THE SOCIETY WHICH IS CLAIMED TO BE AN AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE. 20. BRIEFLY STATED THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE AS UN DER:- THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE RETURNS OF INCOME FOR TH E ASSESSMENT YEARS 2008-09 TO 2011-12 ON 30/03/2012 CLAIMING DEDUCTION U/S. 8 0P(2)(A)(III) FOR THE INCOME DERIVED FROM THE SALE OF TODDY. ACCORDING TO THE A SSESSEE, THE MAIN OBJECTIVE OF THE ASSESSEE-SOCIETY IS TO CONDUCT TODDY SHOPS U NDER THE LICENSE OBTAINED FROM THE STATE EXCISE DEPARTMENT. IT ACQUIRES THE RIGHT TO TAP TODDY FROM THE COCONUT TREES BELONGING TO ITS MEMBERS. THE MEMBER S OF THE SOCIETY ARE ITA NOS.344-346 & 253/COCH/2015 & 340-343/COCH/2015 17 TODDY TAPPERS AND DO TAPPING WORK. THE ASSESSEE IS GOVERNED BY THE KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT AND RULES. ACCORD INGLY, THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT ITS INCOME IS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U /S. 80P(2) (A)(III) SINCE THE SOCIETY IS ENGAGED IN MARKETING OF AGRICULTURAL PRO DUCE GROWN BY ITS MEMBERS. 21. THE CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION WAS REJECTED BY THE AS SESSING OFFICER FOR ALL THE YEARS. THE ASSESSEE FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CI T(A),KOZHIKODE AGAINST THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS FOR THE AFORESAID YEARS. BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) IT WAS CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER OUGHT TO HAVE ACCEPTED THE ASSESSEES CONTENTION THAT THE ASSESSEES ESTABLISHMENT IS ENG AGED IN MARKETING OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE GROWN BY ITS MEMBERS AND AS S UCH IS ENTITLED TO ELIGIBLE DEDUCTION U/S. 80P OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE ALSO R AISED A GROUND THAT IT WAS ENTITLED TO DEDUCTION U/S. 80P(2)(A)(III) ALSO BEI NG AN ESTABLISHMENT ENGAGED IN COLLECTIVE DISPOSAL OF LABOUR OF ITS MEMBERS. B EFORE THE CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE FILED DETAILED ARGUMENT NOTE ALONG WITH SUPPORTING EVIDENCE TO SUBSTANTIATE THE CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION. THE LD. CIT(A) CALLED FOR A REMAND REPORT FORM THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHICH WAS FURNISHED ON 16.3.2015 AND IS REPRODUCED AT PAGES 2 & 3 OF THE APPELLATE ORDER. THE LD. CIT(A) ALSO REFERRED TO THE STATISTICAL DATA FURNISHED IN THE REMAND REPORT FOR THE ASSESSMENT Y EARS 2008-09 TO 2011-12 RELATING TO THE NUMBER OF MEMBERS OF THE SOCIETY EN GAGED IN TAPPING OF TODDY, MEMBERS WHO ARE HAVING THEIR OWN COCONUT TRE ES, THE AREA OF AGRICULTURAL LAND OWNED BY THE MEMBERS AND THE NUMB ER OF COCONUT TREES ITA NOS.344-346 & 253/COCH/2015 & 340-343/COCH/2015 18 TAPPED DURING EACH OF THESE YEARS AND THE WAGES PAI D ETC. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE APPEARING BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) CO NTENDED THAT THE DETAILS OF TODDY TAPPED BY EACH MEMBER FROM THE COCONUT TREES GROWN IN THEIR OWN LAND HAS BEEN FURNISHED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS PER WHICH THE PERCENTAGE OF TODDY TAPPED BY THE MEMBERS OUT OF THE TOTAL TOD DY MARKETED BY THE MEMBERS CONSTITUTED THE FOLLOWING PERCENTAGE: 2008-09 89% 2009-10 80% 2010-11 89% 2011-12 89% 22. HOWEVER, THE REMAND REPORT WAS SILENT ON THESE ASPECTS OF THE ISSUE. HOWEVER, ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER ONLY TO THE EXTENT OF LAND OWNED BY THE MEMBERS OF THE SOCIETY CAN BE GRANTED DEDUCT ION U/S. 80P(2)(A)(III) THE CIT(A) FOUND THAT THE AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE SHOULD B E GROWN ON THE LAND OWNED BY THE MEMBERS OR TAKEN ON LEASE BY THE MEMBE RS AND OWNERSHIP OF THE LAND IS NOT A CRITERIA. SINCE OUT OF THE TOTAL TODDY MARKETED BY THE ASSESSEE, 89%, 80%, 89% AND 89% RESPECTIVELY FOR TH E ASSESSMENT YEARS 2008-09 TO 2011-12 IS TAPPED FROM COCONUT TREES GROWN BY TH E MEMBERS ON THEIR OWN LAND, THE LD. CIT(A) DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ALLOW DEDUCTION OF 89%, 80%, 89% AND 89% OUT OF THE TOTAL DEDUCTION CLAIMED UNDER SECTION ITA NOS.344-346 & 253/COCH/2015 & 340-343/COCH/2015 19 80P(2)(A)(III) BY THE ASSESSEE RESPECTIVELY FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2008-09, 2009-10 2010-11 AND 2011-12. 23. IN THE APPEAL FILED BY THE DEPARTMENT FOLLOWIN G ARE THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL WHICH ARE COMMON FOR ALL YEARS:- 1. WHETHER ON FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE CIT(A) IS RIGHT IN LAW IN DIRECTING THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ALLOW 89% OF THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION MADE U/S. 80P(2)(A)(III)? 2. THE CIT(A) FAILED TO NOTICE THAT OUT OF THE TOTA L 9588 COCONUT TREES TAPPED ONLY 2397 ARE OWNED BY THE MEMBERS OF THE S OCIETY, WHICH CONSTITUTED ONLY 25% OF THE TOTAL NUMBER OF TREES T APPED AND THEREFORE, THE DEDUCTION U/S. 80P(2)(A)(III) ALLOWED AT 89% IS ERRONEOUS AND EXCESSIVE. 3. IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE FINDING OF THE CIT(A) THAT 89% OF THE TOTAL TODDY PURCHASED BY THE SOCIETY IS BY TAPPING ONLY 2 397 (25% OF TREES) COCONUT TREES IS UNSCIENTIFIC. 4. THE CONCLUSION REACHED BY THE CIT(A) THAT 89% OF THE TOTAL TODDY MARKETED BY THE SOCIETY IS TAPPED BY 28.27% OF THE MEMBERS OF THE SOCIETY DOES NOT THROW LIGHT ON THE OWNERSHIP OF TH E TREES TAPPED BY THEM AND HENCE, ERRONEOUS IN DECIDING THE DEDUCTION U/S. 80P(2)(A)(IIII) 24. THE LD. SR. AR ALSO SUBMITTED A NOTE OF ARGUM ENT DATED 10/12/2015 IN THE ABOVE APPEALS WHICH IS DEALT WITH THE COMMON ORDER IN THE APPEALS FILED BY M/S. KANNUR RANGE KALLU AND THE SAME IS CONSIDERED WHILE DISPOSING THE APPEALS IN OUR ORDER IN THOSE APPEALS. ITA NOS.344-346 & 253/COCH/2015 & 340-343/COCH/2015 20 25. WE HAVE ELABORATELY DEALT WITH THE ISSUE RELA TING TO THE CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION U/S. 80P IN OUR ORDER IN THE REVENUES APPEALS IN I .T.A. NOS. 344-346/COCH/2015 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2011-12 AND THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IN I.T.A. NO. 253/COCH/2015 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 10-11 IN THE CASE OF M/S. KANNUR RANGE KALLU CHETHU VYAVASAYA THOZHILALI SAHA KARANA SANGAM LTD. AND HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE-SOCIETY THEREIN IS ENTITLED FOR DEDUCTION U/S. 80P(2)(A)(III) AS A SOCIETY ENGAGED IN MARKETING OF AGRICULTURAL P RODUCE GROWN BY ITS MEMBERS. THE FACTS IN THE PRESENT APPEALS ARE ALSO IDENTICAL TO THE FACTS OF THE AFORESAID APPEALS, HENCE, FOR THE ELABORATE REASONS GIVEN IN THE AFORESAID ORDER, WE ACCEPT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR DEDU CTION U/S. 80P(2)(A)(III) IN THESE APPEALS ALSO AND ACCORDINGLY THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IS CONFIRMED AND THE APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. 26. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE APPEALS OF THE REVENU E ARE DISMISSED AND THAT OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. THE STAY PETITION IN S.P. NO.4 7/COCH/2015 IS DISMISSED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 15-06-2016 SD/- SD/- (GEORGE GEORGE K.) (B.P. JAIN) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PLACE : COCHIN DATED: 15TH JUNE , 2016 ITA NOS.344-346 & 253/COCH/2015 & 340-343/COCH/2015 21 GJ COPY TO: 1. M/S. KANNUR RANGE KALLU CHETHU VYAVASAYA THOZHIL ALI SAHAKARANA SANGAM LTD., SOUTH BAZAR, KANNUR-670 002. 2. M/S. SREEKANDAPURAM AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS & TODD Y TAPPERS CO-OP SOCIETY LTD., P.O. MAYYIL, KANNUR-670 602. 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCL E-1, KANNUR RANGE, KANNUR. 4. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS), KOZHIKO DE. 5. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, KOZHIKODE. 6. THE DR/ITAT, COCHIN BENCH. 7. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, COCHIN ITA NOS.344-346 & 253/COCH/2015 & 340-343/COCH/2015 22 1. DATE OF DICTATION : 09/06/2016 2.DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER OTHER MEMBER: 3.DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR . PS/PS: 4. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE TH E DICTATING MEMBER : 5. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE S R. PS/PS : 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO BENCH CLERK: 7. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO HEAD CLERK: 8. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO ASSISTANT REGISTR AR 9. DATE OF DISPATCH OF THE ORDER:
