M/s The West Godavari Dist. Co-op. Marketing Society Ltd., Eluru V. The ITO, Ward-2, Eluru, Eluru

ITA 392/VIZ/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 130 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9669 (ITAT-VISAKHAPATNAM)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 1 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-11-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 26-11-2015
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 18-10-2012
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Business income; Revised return
• Section: 32; 147; 131; 68; 246; 69; 145; 27; 148; 54; 37; 6; 56; 263; 63; 132; 12; 28; 144; 10; 90; 154; 2; 11; 15; 271(1)(b); 139; 92; 80P; 201; 13

Judgement Text

ITA NO.392/VIZAG/2012 THE WEST GODAVARI DIST. CO-OP. MARKETING SOCIETY LTD ., ELURU 1 , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, VISAKHAPATNAM SMC BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM . , BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./I.T.A.NO.392/VIZAG/2012 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10) THE WEST GODAVARI DIST. CO - OP. MARKETING SOCIETY LTD., ELURU VS. ITO, WARD - 2, ELURU [PAN: AAAAT7717Q ] ( / APPELLANT) ( ! / RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI G.V.N. HARI, AR / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI M. NARAYANA RAO, DR / DATE OF HEARING : 15.11.2016 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 28.11.2016 / O R D E R PER V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THIS APPEAL FILED BY ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST ORDER OF THE CIT(A), VISAKHAPATNAM DATED 30.7.2012 FOR THE ASSES SMENT YEAR 2009-10. ITA NO.392/VIZAG/2012 THE WEST GODAVARI DIST. CO-OP. MARKETING SOCIETY LTD ., ELURU 2 2. FACTS ARE IN BRIEF THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A CO-OPE RATIVE SOCIETY ENGAGED IN DISTRIBUTION OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS, F ERTILIZERS AND CHEMICALS ON CO-OPERATIVE LINES AND RUNNING A CONSUMER COOPER ATIVE SOCIETY IN THE NAME AND STYLE OF HELAPURI SUPER BAZAR FILED ITS RE TURN OF INCOME DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF ` 1,67,670/-. SUBSEQUENTLY, ASSESSEE HAS FILED A REVISED RETURN OF INCOME BY DECLARING TOTAL INCOM E OF ` 2,64,824/-. IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE A.O. HAS NOTED THAT FROM THE STATEMENT OF TOTAL INCOME FILED ALONG WITH REVISED RETURN OF INC OME THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S 80P(2)(A) OF THE INCOME T AX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER CALLED AS 'THE ACT') FOR THE PROFIT OF ` 22,97,472/- EARNED ON THE TOTAL SALES TURNOVER OF ` 23,03,67,075/-. THE A.O. HAS OBSERVED THAT DEDUCTION U/S 80P(2)(A)(IV) OF THE ACT IS ALLOWED O NLY IN THE CASE OF COOPERATIVE SOCIETY ENGAGED IN THE PURCHASE OF AGRI CULTURAL IMPLEMENTS, SEEDS, LIVE STOCK OR OTHER ARTICLES INTENDED FOR AG RICULTURE FOR THE PURPOSE OF SUPPLYING TO ITS MEMBERS. A.O. HAS FURT HER OBSERVED THAT ASSESSEE HAS SOLD THE FERTILIZER AND PESTICIDES TO VARIOUS CONSUMERS/PERSONS WHO ARE NON MEMBERS. ACCORDINGLY , A.O. HAS CALLED THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN. IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE A.O., ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THOUGH ASSESSEE SOLD FE RTILIZERS AND PESTICIDES TO NON-MEMBERS BUT THEY ARE MEMBERS OF T HE COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES. THEREFORE, HE IS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80P(2)(A) OF THE ITA NO.392/VIZAG/2012 THE WEST GODAVARI DIST. CO-OP. MARKETING SOCIETY LTD ., ELURU 3 ACT. THE A.O. HAS CONSIDERED THE EXPLANATION OF TH E ASSESSEE AND REJECTED BY OBSERVING AS UNDER: 3(III) THE ASSESSEES CONTENTIONS THAT THE PERSONS TO WHOM SALES WERE MADE AT THE BRANCHES/DEPOTS ARE MEMBERS OF THE MEMBER SOCIETIES AND THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ELIGIBLE FOR EXEMPTION U/S 80P(2)(A) ON THE TURNOVE R OF SALES OF RS.21 25,74,987 MADE TO MEMBERS OF THE MEMBER SOCIETIES ARE NOT TEN ABLE FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS A) AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 80P2(A)(IV), EXEMP TION IS ALLOWED WHEN THE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY IS ENGAGED IN THE PURCHASE OF AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENTS, SEEDS, LIVE STOCK OR OTHER ARTICLES INTENDED FOR AG RICULTURE FOR THE PURPOSE OF SUPPLYING THEM TO ITS MEMBERS. THE SAID PROVISIONS DO NOT APPLY WHEN THE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY IS ENGAGED IN SUPPLYING SUCH I TEMS TO THE MEMBERS OF THE MEMBER-SOCIETIES SO AS TO ENABLE THE CO-OPERATI VE SOCIETY TO GET DEDUCTION U/S 80 P (2) (A) (IV). B) IT IS SEEN FROM THE RECORDS THAT THE ASSESSEE SOCIE TY WAS SUPPLYING FERTILIZERS AND PESTICIDES TO ALL OF ITS MEMBER SOCIETIES TO FA CILITATE THE MEMBER-SOCIETIES TO SUPPLY THOSE ITEMS IN TURN TO THEIR OWN MEMBERS. HENCE, THE ASSESSEES CONTENTION THAT THE FERTILIZERS SOLD THROUGH BRANCH ES/DEPOTS WERE MEANT FOR MEMBERS OF THE MEMBER-SOCIETIES, IS NOT CORRECT. C) AS SEEN FROM THE SALE BILL BOOKS MAINTAINED BY THE BRANCHES/DEPOTS, THE INDIVIDUAL PURCHASERS WERE NOT THE MEMBERS OF THE A SSESSEE SOCIETY BUT THEY ARE GENERAL PUBLIC, SINCE THE DEPOTS / BRANCHES OF THE SOCIETY ARE OPEN FOR SALE TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC. THOUGH THE ASSESSEE IS CONTENDING THAT THE INDIVIDUAL PURCHASES/CONSUMERS ARE MEMBERS OF THE M EMBER SOCIETIES, NO DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES- WERE FURNISHED TO ESTABLISH THAT THE INDIVIDUAL PURCHASERS ARE MEMBERS OF THE MEMBER SOCIETIES. D) THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF U.P.CO-OPE R2TIVE CANE UNION FEDERATION LTD. VS. CIT (1999 237 ITR 574) HAS HELD AS UNDER. THE MEANING OF THE EXPRESSION 'MEMBERS' CANNOT BE E XTENDED TO INCLUDE THE MEMBERS OF A PRIMARY CO-OPERATIVE SOCIE TY, WHICH IS A MEMBER OF THE FEDERATED CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY SEEKIN G EXEMPTION. 3(IV) THE ASSESSEE'S ANOTHER CONTENTION THAT THE AS SESSEE'S BUSINESS OF DISTRIBUTION OF FERTILIZERS AMONG ITS MEMBER-SOCIETIES AND MEMBE RS IS BEING DONE ONLY OUT OF ITS CO-OPERATIVE BUSINESS FUNDS AND HENCE, TAKE THE CHA RACTER OF CO-OPERATIVE BUSINESS INCOME AND HENCE TAKE THE CHARACTER OF CO-OPERATIVE BUSINESS INCOME WHICH IS ELIGIBLE FOR EXEMPTION U/S 80P(2)(A} IS NOT VIABLE SINCE THE ELIGIBILITY FOR CLAIMING EXEMPTION EMANATES FROM SUPPLY OF THE MATERIAL/ITEM S TO THE MEMBERS, BUT DOES NOT EMANATE OUT OF THE SOURCE OF THE FUNDS UTILIZED FOR THE PURPOSE OF WORKING CAPITAL. ITA NO.392/VIZAG/2012 THE WEST GODAVARI DIST. CO-OP. MARKETING SOCIETY LTD ., ELURU 4 3(V) IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING DISCUSSION, THE ASSESS EE IS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR CLAIMING EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 80P(2)(A)(IV) IN RESPECT OF THE SALES TURNOVER MADE TOWARDS SUPPLY OF FERTILIZERS ETC., TO THE NON-MEMBERS BY T HE VARIOUS BRANCHES !DEPOTS OF THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY. ACCORDINGLY, DEDUCTION CLAIMED U/ S 80P(2)(A)(IV) IS DENIED FOR THE PROFITS EARNED ON THE SATES MADE THROUGH BRANCHES/D EPOTS TO NON-MEMBERS OF RS.21,25,74,987/-. THEREFORE, THE AMOUNT OF RS.21,0 4,492 (BEING THE AMOUNT PROPORTIONATE TO THE TOTAL PROFIT OF RS.22,97.472 A S THE SALES TURNOVER MADE TO NON- MEMBERS OF RS.21,25,74,987 BEARS TO THE TOTAL SALES TURNOVER OF ZS.23,03,67,075) IS ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME RETURNED BY THE ASSESSEE. 3. ON BEING AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE CARRIED MATTER IN A PPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). BEFORE THE CIT(A), HE HAS REITERATED THE S UBMISSIONS WHICH HE MADE BEFORE THE A.O. THE LD. CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDER ING THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE, HE CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE A.O. BY OBSERVING THAT UNDER SUB CLAUSE (IV) OF 80P(2)(A) OF THE ACT, EXEM PTION IS ONLY AVAILABLE WHEN THE TRADE IS CARRIED WITH ITS MEMBERS. IN THE PRESENT CASE, ASSESSEE DID NOT DEAL IN FERTILIZERS WITH THE INTEN TION TO SELL IT TO ITS MEMBER SOCIETIES.. THE ASSESSEE CARRIED FERTILIZER TRADE WITH THE GENERAL PUBLIC WHO ARE NEITHER MEMBERS NOR MEMBERS OF ITS M EMBERS. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR THE DED UCTION U/S 80P(2)(A)(IV) OF THE ACT. THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE ORDER IS EXTRACTED AS UNDER: 3.1.6 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE ARGUMENTS OF THE ASSESS EE AND HAVE CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE DECISIONS RENDERED BY THE HON'BLE APEX COURT CITED ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE AS WELL AS THE ASSESSEE. BEFORE GOING INTO THE CONTEXT AND THE CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH THESE DECISIONS WERE REND ERED AND BEFORE EXAMINING THE APPLICABILITY OF THE DECISIONS TO THE CASE ON HAND, IT WOULD BE PERTINENT TO GO THROUGH SECTION 80P WHICH GOVERNS THE DEDUCTION IN RESPECT OF INCOME OF COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES. THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE SECTION 80P IS REPRODUCED HEREUNDER: ITA NO.392/VIZAG/2012 THE WEST GODAVARI DIST. CO-OP. MARKETING SOCIETY LTD ., ELURU 5 80P, (1) WHERE, IN THE CASE OF AN ASSESSEE BEING A COOPERATIVE SOCIETY, THE GROSS TOTAL IN ME INCLUDES ANY INCOME REFERRED TO IN SUB- SECTION (2), THERE SHALL BE DEDUCTED, IN ACCORDANCE WITH AND SUBJECT TO THE PRO VISIONS OF THIS SECTION, THE SUMS SPECIFIED IN SUB-SECTION(2), IN COMPUTING THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. (2) THE SUMS REFERRED TO IN SUB-SECTION (1) SHALL B E THE FOLLOWING, NAMELY:- (A) IN THE CASE OF A COOPERATIVE SOCIETY ENGAGED IN - (I) CARRYING ON THE BUSINESS OF BANKING OR PROVIDIN G CREDIT FACILITIES TO ITS MEMBERS, OR (II) A COTTAGE INDUSTRY, OR (III) THE MARKETING OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE GROWN B Y ITS MEMBERS, OR (IV) THE PURCHASE OF AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENTS, SEEDS , LIVESTOCK OR OTHER ARTICLES INTENDED FOR AGRICULTURE FOR THE PURPOSE O F SUPPLYING THEM TO ITS MEMBERS, OR (V) THE PROCESSING, WITHOUT THE AID OF POWER, OF TH E AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE OF ITS MEMBERS, (VI) THE COLLECTIVE DISPOSAL OF THE LABOUR OF ITS M EMBERS, OR (VII) FISHING OR ALLIED ACTIVITIES, THAT IS TO SAY, THE CATCHING, CURING, PROCESSING, PRESERVING, STORING OR MARKETING OF FIS H OR THE PURCHASE OF MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT IN CONNECT/ON THEREWITH FOR THE PURPOSE OF SUPPLYING THEM TO ITS MEMBERS) THE WHOLE OF THE AMOUNT OF PROFITS AND GAINS OF BUS INESS ATTRIBUTABLE TO ANY ONE OR MORE OF SUCH ACTIVITIES. 3.1.7. ON PERUSAL OF THE ABOVE SECTION IT IS SEEN T HAT EXCEPT FOR EXEMPTION U/S.80P(2)(A)(II) IN ALL OTHER SUB-SECTIONS IT IS R EQUIRED THAT THE ACTIVITY SHOULD BE CONFINED TO ITS MEMBERS. IN CASE OF SUB-SECTION ( I) ASSESSEE SHOULD CARRY ON THE BUSINESS OF BANKING OR PROVIDING CREDIT FACI LITIES TO ITS MEMBERS. AS PER SUB-SECTION (III) ASSESSEE SHOULD BE MARKETING AGRI CULTURAL PRODUCE GROWN BY ITS MEMBERS. SIMILARLY IN ALL OTHER CASES EXCEPT IN THE CASE OF COTTAGE INDUSTRY IT IS OBLIGATORY THAT THE ACTIVITIES SHOULD HAVE BE EN CARRIED OUT BY ITS MEMBERS. THIS BEING THE POSITION OF THE LAW LET US NOW EXAMINE THE BYE-LAWS OF THE ASSESSEE-SOCIETY AND ITS OBJECTIVES. THE OBJ ECTIVES OF THE SOCIETY ARE AS UNDER: (I) TO ARRANGE FOR THE MARKETING AND SALE OF AGRICULTUR AL AND OTHER PRODUCE BELONGING TO ITS AFFILIATED SOCIETIES AND THEIR MEM BERS TO THE BEST ADVANTAGE WITHIN THE INDIAN UNION AND OUTSIDE; (II) TO RENT OR OWN GODOWNS OR SALES DEPOTS WITHIN ITS J URISDICTION AND ELSEWHERE IF NECESSARY, TO FACILITATE THE STORAGE A ND SALE OF AGRICULTURAL SAND OTHER PRODUCE BELONGING TO IT AND TO ITS AFFILIATED SOCIETIES, AND THEIR MEMBERS; (III) TO ACT AN AGENT FOR DISTRIBUTION TO ITS MEMBERS AGR ICULTURAL REQUISITES SUCH AS FERTILIZERS, IRON AND STEEL AGRICULTURAL IM PLEMENTS ETC., WHICH THEY NEED AS PRODUCERS AND CULTIVATORS. FROM THE PERUSAL OF THE ABOVE OBJECTIVES IT IS SEEN THAT THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY IS FORMED WITH AN INTENTION TO SERVE THE PURPOSE OF ITS MEMBERS. AS PER THE OBJECTIVE NO.(III) IT CAN ACT AS AN AGENT FOR DISTR IBUTION OF FERTILIZERS ETC TO ITS ITA NO.392/VIZAG/2012 THE WEST GODAVARI DIST. CO-OP. MARKETING SOCIETY LTD ., ELURU 6 MEMBERS. IN THIS BACK-GROUND IT WOULD BE PERTINENT TO LOOK INTO WHO IS ELIGIBLE TO BECOME MEMBER OF THE SOCIETY. THE ELIGI BILITY TO MEMBERSHIP AS PER THE BYE-LAWS IS AS FOLLOWS. (1) CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL CREDIT SOCIETIES AND PRI MARY COOPERATIVE MARKETING SOCIETY REGISTERED OR DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN REGISTERED UNDER THE ANDHRA PRADESH CO-OPERATIVE SO CIETIES ACT OF 1964 SITUATED WITHIN THE AREA OF OPERATIONS OF THE SOCIETY SHALL BE ELIGIBLE FOR ADMISSION OF MEMBERS. IT SHALL ALSO B E OPEN TO THE SOCIETY TO ADMIT AS MEMBERS SUCH TYPE OR CLASS OF COOPERATI VE SOCIETIES AS MAY SPECIALLY BE PERMITTED BY THE REGISTRAR. HOWEVE R, IT SHALL BE OPEN TO THE STATE GOVERNMENT TO BECOME A MEMBER OF THE S OCIETY, AND TAKE SHARES IN THE SOCIETY DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY SUBJEC T TO SUCH TERMS AND CONDITIONS AS MAY BE LAID DOWN BY GOVERNMENT FROM T IME TO TIME AND SUCH TERMS AND CONDITIONS SHALL BE BINDING ON THE S OCIETY. (2) NO INDIVIDUAL SHALL BE ADMITTED AS MEMBER OF THE SO CIETY . PROVIDED THAT INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE ALREADY MEMBERS AND WHO CHOOSE CONTINUE AS MEMBERS OF THE SOCIETY SHALL ELIG/B/E TO CONTINUE A S MEMBERS' 3.1.8 FROM THE ABOVE IT CAN BE SEEN THAT NO INDIVID UAL SHALL BE ALLOWED AS A MEMBER OF THE SOCIETY. THIS SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSEE -SOCIETY IS A FEDERATION OF COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES WHICH ARE BASICALLY PACS AND AGRICULTURAL MARKETING SOCIETIES. IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE OBSERVATIONS BA SED ON BYE-LAWS OF THE SOCIETY THE ASSESSEE'S REPRESENTATIVE WAS ASKED TO WHOM THE FERTILIZERS WERE SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE. AS ALREADY DISCUSSED THE SOCI ETY SOLD AROUND 10% OF ITS TOTAL TURNOVER TO THE MEMBER SOCIETIES AND AROUND 9 0% TO THE NON-MEMBERS. ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT THE REMAINING 90% ARE THE MEM BERS OF ITS MEMBER SOCIETIES I.E THE MEMBERS OF THE PRIMARY AGRICULTUR AL CREDIT SOCIETIES OR AGRICULTURAL MARKETING SOCIETY WHICH ARE THE MEMBER S OF ASSESSEE-SOCIETY. ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO PROVE THAT THE FERTILIZERS WE RE SOLD ONLY TO THE MEMBERS OF MEMBER-SOCIETIES. IN EFFECT HE WAS ASKED AS TO WHETHER BEING A MEMBER OF MEMBER SOCIETY IS A PREREQUISITE TO PURCH ASE THE FERTILIZERS BEING SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE-SOCIETY. IN RESPONSE THE ASSESS EE BROUGHT CERTAIN DETAILS WHICH SHOWED THAT IN SEVEN DEPOTS, AMONG THE MANY D EPOTS WHICH SOLD THE FERTILIZERS, THE PERCENTAGE OF MEMBERS WHO BOUGHT T HE FERTILIZERS ARE AS PER THE FOLLOWING DETAILS. S.NO. NAME OF THE DEPOT PERCENTAGE OF MEMBERS 1 DONDAPUDI 35.59 2 KHANDAVALLI 24.28 3 MUNDURU 80.59 4 NALLAJERIA 34.82 5 NIDADAVOLE 25.25 6 PERAVALI 37.80 7 PERUGUGUDEM 36.50 ITA NO.392/VIZAG/2012 THE WEST GODAVARI DIST. CO-OP. MARKETING SOCIETY LTD ., ELURU 7 3.1.9 IT IS FURTHER STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE SOLD FE RTILIZERS THROUGH 15 DEPOTS OUT OF WHICH DETAILS PERTAINING TO SEVEN DEPOTS ARE ONLY AVAILABLE. WITH REGARD TO THE OTHER DEPOTS IT IS STATED BY THE ASSESSEE TH AT IT IS HIGHLY DIFFICULT TO SEGREGATE THE DETAILS OF MEMBER AND NON-MEMBER PURC HASERS. ON PERUSAL OF THE ABOVE DETAILS IT IS SEEN THAT THE FERTILIZERS W ERE SOLD TO GENERAL PUBLIC AND THERE IS NO PREREQUISITE THAT HE SHOULD BE A MEMBER OF MEMBER-SOCIETY TO PURCHASE THE FERTILIZERS. THUS IT CAN BE CONCLUDED THAT THE FERTILIZERS BUSINESS WAS DONE WITH NON-MEMBERS. THEREFORE THE ARGUMENT O F THE ASSESSEE THAT THE BUSINESS WAS DONE ONLY WITH THE MEMBERS OF THE MEMBER-SOCIETY IS NOT CORRECT. EVEN WITH REGARD TO THE BUSINESS DONE IF A NY WITH THE MEMBERS OF MEMBER-SOCIETY WHAT NEEDS TO BE EXAMINED IS WHETHER DEDUCTION U/S.80P IS ALLOWABLE FROM THE PROFITS OF THE ACTIVITIES CONDUC TED WITH THE MEMBERS OF MEMBER-SOCIETIES, IN THIS REGARD AO RELIED ON THE SU PREME COURT DECISION IN THE CASE OF U.P. CO-OPERATIVE CANE UNION FEDERATION LTD VS. CIT 237 FIR 574 TO STATE THAT MEMBERS CANNOT INCLUDE THE CONTRARY R ELIED ON SUPREME COURT'S DECISION IN THE CASE OF KERALA STATE COOPERATIVE MA RKETING (SUPRA) AND DECISION OF RAJASTHAN RAJYA SAHAKARI SANGH LTD (SUP RA). ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT THE DECISION OF SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF U .P.CO-OPERATIVE CANE UNION FEDERATION LTD IS NO MORE A GOOD LAW IN VIEW OF KERALA STATE COOPERATIVE DECISION. TO EXAMINE THE CORRECTNESS OF ASSESSEE'S CLAIM WE NEED TO ANALYZE THE DECISIONS OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COU RT IN BOTH THE ABOVE CASES. 3.1.10 IN U.P. COOPERATIVE CASE HON'BLE SUPREME COUR T EXAMINED THE MEANING OF WORD 'MEMBER' AS USED IN SECTION 80P(2)( A)(I). THOUGH THE CASE BEFORE THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT PERTAINS TO SECTIO N 80P(2)(A)(I) THE DECISION GIVEN BY THE HON'BLE COURT ESPECIALLY THE MEANING OF WORD MEMBER EXPLAINED IN DETAIL IS EQUALLY APPLICABLE TO ALL OT HER SUB CLAUSES OF SECTION 80P(2) WHEREVER THE WORD MEMBER IS USED. HON'BLE SU PREME COURT HELD THAT THE EXPRESSION MEMBERS IS NOT DEFLNED IN THE ACT. I T IS EXPLAINED THAT SINCE A COOPERATIVE SOCIETY HAS TO BE ESTABLISHED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF LAW MADE BY THE STATE LEGISLATURE THE EXPRESSION MEMBERS IN SEC TION 80P(2)(A)(I) MUST BE CONSTRUED IN THE CONTEXT OF PROVISIONS OF LAW ENACT ED BY STATE LEGISLATURE UNDER WHICH THE COOPERATIVE SOCIETY CLAIMING EXEMPT ION HAS BEEN FOUND. IT IS THEREFORE NECESSARY TO CONSTRUE THE EXPRESSION MEMB ERS IN THE LIGHT OF DEFINITION OF THE EXPRESSION AS CONTAINED IN COOPER ATIVE SOCIETIES ACT. HON'BLE APEX COURT WENT ON TO OBSERVE THAT THE PARLIAMENT U SED THE EXPRESSION 'MEMBERS' IN THE NORMAL SENSE OF A MEMBER OF COOPER ATIVE SOCIETY. THE INTENTION WAS TO EXTEND THE EXEMPTION TO COOPERATIV E SOCIETIES DIRECTLY EXTENDING FACILITIES TO ITS MEMBERS. THE HON'BLE CO URT HELD THAT 'THERE IS NOTHING IN THE SAID 'PROVISIONS TO SHOW THAT THE IN TENTION WAS TO GRANT EXEMPTION TO CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES WHICH WERE EXTE NDING CREDIT FACILITIES TO PERSONS, WHO, THOUGH NOT THE MEMBERS OF THE SAID SO CIETY, WERE MEMBERS OF ANOTHER CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY WHICH WAS A MEMBER OF THE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY SEEKING EXEMPTION. THE MEANING OF THE EXPRESSION 'M EMBERS' CANNOT, THEREFORE, BE EXTENDED TO INCLUDE THE MEMBERS OF A PRIMARY CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY WHICH IS A MEMBER OF THE FEDERATED CO-OPERA TIVE SOCIETY SEEKING EXEMPTION THE PRINCIPLE OF LIFTING THE CORPORATE VE IL CANNOT HAVE ANY ITA NO.392/VIZAG/2012 THE WEST GODAVARI DIST. CO-OP. MARKETING SOCIETY LTD ., ELURU 8 APPLICATION IN THE CONTEXT OF THE PROVISIONS CONTAI NED IN SECTION 80P(2)('A)(1). IN CLAUSE (B) OF SUB-SECTION (2) OF SECTION SOP, REF ERENCE HAS BEEN MADE TO PNIMAIY SOCIETY AS WE/I AS FEDERATED CO-OPERATIVE SO CIETIES WHICH INDICATES THAT WHILE ENACTING SECTION 80P PARLIAMENT WAS CONS CIOUS OF THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE VARIOUS TYPES OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES FUNCTIONING IN THIS COUNTRY'. 3. 1.11 FROM THE ABOVE OBSERVATIONS IT IS CLEAR THA T THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IS OF THE FIRM OPINION THAT THE WORD MEMBERS USED IN THE SECTION 80P(2) CANNOT BE EXTENDED TO MEMBERS TO MEMBER-SOCIETY. FR OM THE ABOVE IT IS CLEAR THAT THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT ANALYZED THE I NTENTION OF LAW-MAKERS WITH REGARD TO THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE PRIMARY SOCIETIES AS WELL AS FEDERATED COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES. HON'BLE SUPREME CO URT WHILE GIVING THIS DECISION FOLLOWED ITS EARLIER DECISION IN THE CASE OF ASSAM COOPERATIVE APEX MARKETING SOCIETY 201 ITR 338 WHEREIN THE SUPREME C OURT CONSIDERED A SIMILAR QUESTION. IN THAT CASE THE SOCIETY WAS MARKE TING THE AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE OF THE GROWERS WHO ARE NOT MEMBERS OF THE A PEX SOCIETY BUT WERE MEMBERS OF COOPERATIVE-SOCIETIES WHICH IN TURN WERE MEMBERS OF APEX SOCIETY. ON PERUSAL OF SECTION 80P(2) WHICH SHOWS T HAT MARKETING OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE IS COVERED UNDER SUB-SECTION ( III). THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF ASSAM COOPERATIVE THUS PERTAINS TO SUB-SECT ION (III). THE SAME MEANING OF THE WORD MEMBER IS APPLIED BY HON'BLE SU PREME COURT IN THE CONTEXT OF SUB-SECTION (I) ALSO. THUS IT IS CLEAR T HAT THE SUPREME COURT IS EXPLAINING THE WORD MEMBER USED IN SECTION 80P(2) I RRESPECTIVE OF SUB-CLAUSE OF THE SECTION. THEREFORE THE ASSESSEE'S CONTENTION THAT THE SUPREME COURT DECISION IS APPLICABLE ONLY TO SUB-SECTION (2)(A)(I ) IS NOT CORRECT. THEREFORE IT CAN BE SAFELY CONCLUDED THAT THE MEANING OF WORD ME MBER EXPLAINED BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT HOLDS GOOD FOR THE ENTIRE SUB -SECTION (2) OF SECTION 80P. 3.1.12 ANOTHER CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT T HE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT OVERRULED ITS EARLIER DECISION WHILE DECIDING THE C ASE OF KERALA STATE COOPERATIVE SOCIETY. IT IS TRUE THAT THE DECISION IN CASE OF KERALA STATE WAS DELIVERED ON 13.05.1998 WHICH IS LATER TO THE DECIS ION OF U.P.CO-OPERATIVE CANE UNION FEDERATION LTD. HOWEVER THE HON'BLE APEX COURT IN THE KERALA CASE ANALYZED THE MEANING OF THE WORD 'OF ITS MEMBE RS'. THE ISSUE THEREIN INVOLVES THE SOCIETY WHICH IS ENGAGED IN MARKETING THE AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE OF ITS MEMBERS, ASSESSEE IN THAT CASE IS AN APEX SOCIE TY WHICH PURCHASED CASHEW FROM THE PRIMARY COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES WHO A RE ITS MEMBERS. ASSESSEE CLAIMED EXEMPTION OF THE PROFIT FROM SUCH TRANSACTION WHICH AO REJECTED. CIT(A) TOOK A VIEW THAT ASSESSEE IS TO EX EMPTION IN RESPECT OF INCOME FROM PROCUREMENT OF CASHEWS FROM ITS MEMBER SOCIETIES. HOWEVER HE MADE IT CLEAR THAT THE SAID EXEMPTION WOULD NOT BE APPLICABLE FOR PURCHASES OR SUPPLIES MADE BY PRIMARY SOCIETIES WHICH ARE NOT MEMBERS OF THE ASSESSEE-SOCIETY. BOTH THE REVENUE AND THE ASSESSEE CONTESTED THE DECISION. TRIBUNAL DISMISSED BOTH THE APPEALS AND UPHELD THE DECISION OF CIT(A). DEPARTMENT SOUGHT A REFERENCE IN THE HIGH COURT. TH E REFERENCE WAS ANSWERED AGAINST THE REVENUE. HOWEVER IN VIEW OF TH E ASSAM COOPERATIVE ITA NO.392/VIZAG/2012 THE WEST GODAVARI DIST. CO-OP. MARKETING SOCIETY LTD ., ELURU 9 DECISION 301 ITR 338 IT IS HELD BY THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT THAT THE ASSESSEE WOULD BE ENTITLED TO DEDUCTION IN RESPECT OF PURCHA SES MADE FROM ITS MEMBER SOCIETIES. BEFORE THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IT IS A RGUED ON BEHALF OF THE KERALA SOCIETY THAT THE VIEW EXPRESSED BY THE APEX COURT IN ASSAM MARKETING CASE REQUIRES RECONSIDERATION. HON'BLE SUPREME COUR T WHILE DELIVERING THE JUDGEMENT HELD THAT THE EXPRESSION 'MARKETING' IS A N EXPRESSION OF WIDE IMPORT WHICH INCLUDES MANY, ACTIVITIES SUCH AS STOR AGE, TRANSPORTATION, PROCESSING ETC. SUCH ACTIVITIES CAN BE BETTER CARRI ED ON BY AN APEX SOCIETY RATHER THAN A PRIMARY SOCIETY. SO LONG AS THE AGRIC ULTURAL PRODUCE HANDLED BY THE ASSESSEE-SOCIETY BELONGS TO ITS MEMBERS, IT IS ENTITLED TO EXEMPTION IN RESPECT OF THE PROFITS DERIVED FROM MARKETING THE S AME. HON'BLE COURT HELD THAT WHETHER THE MEMBERS CAME BY THE PRODUCE BECAUS E OF THEIR OWN AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES OR WHETHER ACQUIRED IT BY P URCHASING FROM CULTIVATORS WAS OF NO CONSEQUENCE. WITH RESPECT TO THE DECISION OF ASSAM COOPERATIVE SOCIETY CASE, THE HON'BLE APEX COURT HELD THAT THE VIEW TAKEN THEREIN REQUIRES RECONSIDERATION. IT IS HELD BY THE COURT THAT THE SO CIETY ENGAGED IN MARKETING OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE OF ITS MEMBERS WOULD MEAN N OT ONLY SUCH SOCIETIES WHICH DEAL WITH PRODUCE RAISED BY ITS MEMBERS WHO A RE INDIVIDUALS BUT ALSO SOCIETIES WHICH ARE MEMBERS THEREOF WHO MAY HAVE PU RCHASED SUCH PRODUCE FROM THE AGRICULTURISTS. FROM THE ANALYSIS OF ABOVE DECISION IT COMES TO LIGHT THAT AS LONG AS THE PRODUCE IS OWNED BY THE MEMBERS OF THE SOCIETY IT IS NOT MATERIAL AS TO WHETHER THE MEMBERS GREW THE AGRICUL TURAL PRODUCE THEMSELVES OR PURCHASED SUCH PRODUCE. THUS THE MAIN EMPHASIS IS ON THE WORD 'OF ITS MEMBERS'/ BELONGING TO ITS MEMBERS. TH EREFORE AS LONG AS THE PRODUCE BELONGS TO THE MEMBERS THE PROFITS THEREOF ARE ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION. HON'BLE COURT ALSO CLARIFIED THAT THE EXEMPTION IS INTENDED TO CASES WHERE A COOPERATIVE SOCIETY IS INTENDED FOR A PARTICULAR PU RPOSE BY ITS MEMBERS AND ITS TRANSACTIONS ARE CARRIED OUT ONLY WITH ITS MEMB ERS. IN OTHER WORDS THE COMPHARIS IN SECTION 81(I)(C) [ WHICH IS PARA-MATER IA TO 80P(2)(A)(III)] IS NOT BETWEEN THE AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE RAISED BY ITS MEMB ERS AND AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE RAISED BY OTHERS. THE CONTRAST IS BETWEEN A GRICULTURAL PRODUCE ACQUIRED FROM MEMBERS AND AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE PURC HASED FROM OUTSIDERS. THUS IT IS HELD BY THE COURT THAT THE WORDS 'OF ITS MEMBERS' ARE USED TO BRING OUT A CONTRAST THAT AN AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE OF PERS ONS OTHERS THAN MEMBERS. THE COURT WENT ON TO OBSERVE THAT A COOPERATIVE SOC IETY ENGAGED IN THE MARKETING OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE CAN PURCHASE AGRI CULTURAL PRODUCE FROM ITS MEMBERS AS WELL AS FROM OUTSIDERS. IF IT PURCHASES F ROM, SELLS TO OR OTHERWISE DEALS WITH OUTSIDERS THEN SUCH A SOCIETY IS AS GOOD AS ANY OTHER BUSINESS ORGANIZATION AND AN EXEMPTION MAY NOT BE C ALLED FOR. 3.1.13 FROM THE ABOVE OBSERVATION OF THE HON'BLE CO URT IT IS CLEAR THAT THE EMPHASIS IS MAINLY ON THE MEMBERS. THE COURT CLEARL Y HELD THAT THE WORD MEMBERS IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN THE ACTUAL PRODUCER OF THE COMMODITY. AS LONG AS THE PRODUCE BELONGS TO THE' MEMBER IN ANY W HICH WAY IT IS NOT NECESSARY THAT THEY SHOULD HAVE GROWN THE PRODUCE T HEMSELVES. THEREFORE EVEN IN KERALA COOPERATIVE CASE THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT LAID EMPHASIS ON THE ASPECT THAT TRADE SHOULD BE DONE ONLY WITH MEMB ERS THOUGH THE PRODUCE IS NOT PRODUCED BY THE MEMBERS. THE CLEAR OBSERVATI ON MADE BY THE COURT ITA NO.392/VIZAG/2012 THE WEST GODAVARI DIST. CO-OP. MARKETING SOCIETY LTD ., ELURU 10 THAT 'IF SOCIETY DEALS WITH THE OUTSIDERS THEN THE SAME IS AS GOOD AS ANY OTHER BUSINESS CONCERN' MAKES THE INTENTION OF THE HON'BL E APEX COURT CRYSTAL CLEAR. IN FACT THE HON'BLE COURT'S DECISION IN KERALA CASE COMPLEMENTS RATHER THAN CONTRADICTS THE DECISION OF UP COOPERATIVE CASE. IN BOTH THE CASES THE EMPHASIS IS ON THE MEMBERS. WHILE IN THE CASE OF KE RALA STATE COOPERATIVE, THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT EXPLAINED THE WORDS 'OF I TS MEMBERS'. IN THE U.P. COOPERATIVE CASE, THE APEX COURT EXPLAINED THE MEAN ING OF 'MEMBERS'. THEREFORE I AM OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT BOTH T HESE DECISIONS OPERATE IN THE DIFFERENT SPHERES BUT AT THE SAME TIME COMPLEME NTING EACH OTHER AND EMPHASIZING THAT THE TRADE AMONGST THE MEMBERS IS M OST THE IMPORTANT FACTOR TO GET EXEMPTION U/S.80P(2). IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE ASSESSEE'S CONTENTION THAT THE KERALA JUDGEMENT OVERRULES THE U,P.COOPERATIVE JUDGEMENT IS WITHOUT ANY BASIS. IN FACT BOTH THE JUD GEMENTS ARE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE INASMUCH AS THEIR EMPHASIS THAT THE TRADE MUST BE WITH THE MEMBERS IS CONCERNED. 3.1.14 ASSESSEE ALSO RELIED ON THE DECISION OF HON' BLE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF RAJYA BUNKER SAHAKARI SANGH LTD 258 ITR 88. THIS DECISION CONCERNS THE COTTAGE INDUSTRY. AS ALREADY DISCUSSED , COTTAGE INDUSTRY IS COVERED IN SUB-CLAUSE(II) OF SECTION 80P(2)(A) AND IT IS THE ONLY SUB-CLAUSE WHICH DOES NOT EMPHASES THAT THE DEALING SHOULD BE WITH MEMBERS. THEREFORE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT'S DECISION WHICH IS RELEVANT ONLY TO 80P(2)(A)(II) CANNOT BE APPLIED TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE. EVEN OTHERWISE THE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT NEVER DWELLED UP ON THE ISSUE OF MEMBERSHIP. IN THAT CASE ALSO, ASSESSEE BEING AN AP EX COOPERATIVE SOCIETY DEALT ONLY WITH PRIMARY SOCIETIES AND HENCE THE HON 'BLE COURT RIGHTLY HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE BEING ENGAGED IN A COTTAGE INDUSTRY IS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S.80P. HON'BLE SUPREME COURT AFFIRMED THE DECISIO N OF HON'BLE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT. HOWEVER THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE SUP REME COURT EITHER OVERRULED OR DISTINGUISHED ITS OWN EARLIER DECISION S OF EITHER U.P. COOPERATIVE OR KERALA COOPERATIVE CASE. THEREFORE I HOLD THAT TH E RELIANCE PLACED BY ASSESSEE ON RAJASTHAN RAJYA SAH. SANGH LTD CASE IS TOTALLY MISPLACED. 3.115 ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT CASE IS CLAIMING DEDU CTION UNDER SUB-CLAUSE (IV) OF 80P(2)(A) AND THE SAID SUB-CLAUSE CLEARLY M ENTIONS THAT EXEMPTION IS ONLY AVAILABLE WHEN THE TRADE IS DONE FOR THE PURPO SE OF ITS MEMBERS BASED ON THE FACTUAL MATRIX IN THE ASSESSEE'S CASE IT IS CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT DEAL IN FERTILIZERS WITH AN INTENTION TO SELL T O ITS MERNBER-SOCIETIES. THE FERTILIZER TRADE WAS CARRIED OUT WITH THE GENERAL P UBLIC WHO ARE NEITHER ITS MEMBERS NOR MEMBERS OF ITS MEMBERS. THEREFORE THE A SSESSEE CAN BE TERMED AS ANY OTHER BUSINESS ORGANIZATION AS HELD B Y THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF KERALA COOPERATIVE. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, I AM OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT HON'BLE SUPREME COURT DECIS IONS CITED BY THE REVENUE AS WELL AS THE ASSESSEE ARE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. T HUS RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE APEX COURT DECISIONS CITED ABOVE, I HOLD THAT TH E ASSESSEE IS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S.80P(2) AS IT DID NOT DEAL WITH IT S MEMBERS AND CARRIED OUT THE ACTIVITY OF FERTILIZER TRADE AS ANY OTHER BUSIN ESS CONCERN. THEREFORE I HAVE ITA NO.392/VIZAG/2012 THE WEST GODAVARI DIST. CO-OP. MARKETING SOCIETY LTD ., ELURU 11 NO HESITATION IN UPHOLDING THE ACTION OF ASSESSING OFFICER IN DISALLOWING THE DEDUCTION U/S 80P(2)(A)(IV). THE ADDITION MADE IS THUS CONFIRMED. 4. ON BEING AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE CARRIED MATTER IN A PPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 5. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED T HAT THOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT CARRIED ITS TRADE TO MEMBERS OF TH E ASSESSEE SOCIETY BUT ULTIMATELY SOLD TO FARMERS ONLY, THEREFORE, HE IS ELIGIBLE FOR EXEMPTION U/S 80P(2)(A)(IV) OF THE ACT. 6. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. D.R. HAS STRONGLY SUP PORTED THE ORDER PASSED BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 7. I HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES, PERUSED THE MATER IALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITI ES BELOW. ASSESSEE IS A COOPERATIVE SOCIETY ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF FERTILIZER AND PESTICIDES. THE A.O. IN HIS ORDER HAS NOTED THAT T HE ASSESSEE HAS SOLD FERTILIZER AND PESTICIDES TO NON MEMBERS AND THEREF ORE, NOT ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80P(2)(A)(IV) OF THE ACT,. THE ASSES SEE HAS SUBMITTED BEFORE THE A.O. THAT THOUGH THE TRADE CARRIED BY TH E ASSESSEE NOT TO THE MEMBERS BUT THEY ARE TO THE MEMBERS OF THE COOPERAT IVE SOCIETY. ITA NO.392/VIZAG/2012 THE WEST GODAVARI DIST. CO-OP. MARKETING SOCIETY LTD ., ELURU 12 HOWEVER, A.O. HAS REJECTED THE EXPLANATION OF THE A SSESSEE AND DENIED THE EXEMPTION CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. ON APPEAL, THE LD. CIT(A) PASSED A DETAILED ORDER AND GAVE A FINDING THAT THE TRADE CARRIED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE WITH THE GENERAL PUBLIC WHO ARE NEITHE R ITS MEMBERS NOR MEMBERS OF ITS MEMBERS AND HELD THAT ASSESSEE IS NO T ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80P(2)(A)(IV) OF THE ACT. THE LD. CI T(A) CAME TO THE ABOVE CONCLUSION BY FOLLOWING THE U.P. COOPERATIVE CANE UNION FEDERATION LTD. VS. CIT 237 ITR 574, WHEREIN HONBL E SUPREME COURT HAS HELD THAT FEDERATED COOPERATIVE SOCIETY CANNOT CLAIM DEDUCTION U/S 80P(2)(A)(I) IN RESPECT OF INCOME DERIVED BY IT BY EXISTING CREDIT FACILITIES TO MEMBERS OF PRIMARY COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES, WHICH ARE THE MEMBERS OF FEDERATED COOPERATIVE SOCIETY BUT NOT ITS OWN MEMBE RS. 8. I FIND THAT THE LD. CIT(A) BY CONSIDERING THE EN TIRE FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE AND ALSO BY FOLLOWING JUDGEMENT OF HON BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF UP CO-OPERATIVE CANE UNION FEDERATIO N LTD. (SUPRA) (SUPRA) HAS HELD THAT ASSESSEE IS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR EXEMPTION U/S 80P(2)(A)(I) OF THE ACT. I FIND NO REASON TO INTER FERE WITH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) THEREFORE I UPHOLD THE SAM E. ITA NO.392/VIZAG/2012 THE WEST GODAVARI DIST. CO-OP. MARKETING SOCIETY LTD ., ELURU 13 9. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED . THE ABOVE ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 28 TH NOV16. SD/- ( . ) (V. DURGA RAO) /JUDICIAL MEMBER ! /VISAKHAPATNAM: % /DATED : 28.11.2016 VG/SPS '! (! /COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. / THE APPELLANT THE WEST GODAVARI DIST. CO-OPERA TIVE MARKETING SOCIETY LTD., ELURU 2. / THE RESPONDENT THE ITO, WARD-2, ELURU 3. ) / THE CIT, RAJAHMUNDRY 4. ) ( ) / THE CIT(A), VISAKHAPATNAM 5. ! , , , , ! / DR, ITAT, VISAKHAPATNAM 6 . / GUARD FILE / BY ORDER // TRUE COPY // /0 , (SR.PRIVATE SECRETARY) , , ! / ITAT, VISAKHAPATNAM