M/s. The Pondicherry State Weavers Co-operative Society Ltd., CHENNAI V. The Income Tax Officer, Pondicherry

ITA 503/CHNY/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 64373 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-10-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 18-10-2012
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 08-03-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: S SRIDHAR

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C B ENCH C HENN AI BEFORE SHRI ABRAHAM P GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY , JUDICIAL MEMBER .. ITA NOS. 500 TO 503 . /MDS./ 20 12 ASSESSMENT YEAR S: 200 5 - 06 TO 2008 - 09 M/S.THE PONDICHERRY STAT E WEAVERS CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD., P - 57, INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, THATTANCHAVADI PONDICHERRY 605 009. VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(2), PONDICHERRY. PAN AAAT 8293 P (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI S.SRIDHAR, ADVOCATE RESPONDE NT BY : SHRI GURU BASHYAM, JCIT D.R. DATE OF HEARING : 18 . 1 0.12 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 18 . 1 0.12 O R D E R PER ABARAHAN P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : THESE ARE APPEALS OF ASSESSEE DI RECTED AGAINST A CONSOLIDATED ORDER DATED 23.01.12 OF CIT(A) - XII,CHENNAI - 34 FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEARS. 2. SHORT FACTS APROPOS ARE THAT ASSESSEE IS A CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETY ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF PURCHASING YARN AND ITA . 500 TO 503 /MDS/ 12 2 WEAVING APPLIANCES AND SALE OF FINISHED PRODUCTS , FOR AFFILIATED SOCIETIES , ON THE BASIS OF COLLECTIVE DISPOSAL LABOUR. TO PUT IT MORE LUCIDLY, A SSESSEE WAS PURCHASING YARN AND GIVING IT TO ITS MEMBERS, WHO WERE ALSO SOCIETIES. LATTER SOCIETIES IN TURN USED SUCH YARN THROUGH M EMBERS FOR MANUFACTURING FINISHED GOODS, WHICH WAS SUPPLIED BACK TO THE ASSESSEE. ASSESSEE THEREAFTER, EFFECTED THE SALES OF SUCH FINISHED GOODS. IN OTHER WORDS, ASSESSEE SOCIETY WAS AN APEX CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETY AND ITS MEMBERS WERE TWELVE PRIMARY CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETIES. ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80P(2)(A)(VI) ON ITS INCOME OTHER THAN INTEREST AND DIVIDEND , ON A GROUND THAT ITS INCOME WAS THE RESULT OF COLLECTIVE DISPOSAL OF LABOUR OF ITS MEMBERS. HOWEVER, ASSESSING OFFICER WAS OF THE OPINION THAT DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80P(2)(A)(VI) OF THE ACT WOULD BE AVAILABLE ONLY WHERE THE MEMBER S OF THE SOCIETY WERE DIRECTLY PUTTING IN THE LABOUR AND IT COULD N O T BE EXTENDED TO THO SE SOCIETIES WHOSE MEMBERS WERE OTHER PRIMARY CO - OPERATIVE SOC IETIES . 3. ASSESSEE MOVED IN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) FOR ALL THE ASSESSMENT YEARS AGAINST THE DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION.8 0P(2)(A) (VI). ARGUMENT OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE ITA . 500 TO 503 /MDS/ 12 3 CIT(A) WAS THAT IT WOULD FALL BOTH UNDER CLAUSE (II) OF SECTION 80P(2)(A), AS ALSO (VI) OF SECTION 80P(2)(A). ASSESSEE DESCRIBED ITS ACTIVITIES AS UNDER: - THE APPELLANT PURCHASES YARN FROM THE NATIONAL HANDLOOM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, PONDICHERRY CO - OPERATIVE SPINNING MILLS AND A FEW OTHER CO - OPERATIVE SPINNING MILLS. THE YARN SO PURCHASED IS SUBJECT TO FURTHER PROCESSING SUCH AS DYEING. THE PROCESSED YARN IS GIVEN TO THE MEMBERS FOR MANUFACTURE OF CLOTH. T HE WOVEN CLOTH IS PURCHASED FRO M THE MEMBERS. THE APPELLANT HAS ACCOUNTED THE ABOVE TRANSACTIONS IN THE FOLLOWING MANNER . PURCHASE OF YARN PURCHASE OF YARN YARN GIVEN TO MEMBERS FOR WEAVING SALE OF YEARN YARN RECEIVED FROM MEMBERS AFTER WEAVING PURCHASE OF CLOTH THE CLOTH PURCHASED IS SUBJECT TO PROCESSING AND PRINTING AND SOLD IN THE OPEN MARKET. THUS, THE C LAIM OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT ITS ENTIRE BUSINESS ACTIVITY WAS RESULT OF COLLECTIVE DISPOSAL OF LABOUR OF ITS MEMBERS. T WELVE PRIMARY SOCIETIES, WHO WERE MEMBERS OF THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY, WERE LOCATED IN VARIOUS PARTS OF THE PONDICHERRY . AS PER THE ASSESSEE, I NTENTION FOR FORMING THE APEX SOCIETY WAS TO ITA . 500 TO 503 /MDS/ 12 4 FACILITATE PROCUREMENT OF Y ARN FOR WEAVERS AND MARKETING THE G OODS MANUFACTURED BY THEM . AGAIN A S PER THE ASSESSEE, IT HAD PURCHASED YARN FROM NATIONAL HANDL OOM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION AND OTHER CO - OPERATIVE SPINNING MILLS ONLY . SUCH YARN WAS DYED BY ANOTHER CO - OPER A TIVE SOCIETY AND PROCESSED YARN GIVEN TO ITS MEMBERS, WHO WERE PRIMARY CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETIES. S UCH PRIMARY CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETIES IN TURN HAND ED OVER THE WOVE N CLOTH BACK TO THE ASSESSEE, WHIC H SOLD IT TO OPEN MARKET. AS PER THE ASSESSEE, ACTIVITIES OF THE ASSESSEE WERE MIS - CONSTRUED AS TRADING . FURTHER, ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSEE , MEMBER SOCIETIES WERE ENGAGED ONLY IN A COTTAGE INDUSTRY. T H E MEMBERS OF THE PRIMARY SOCIETIES WERE MANUFACTUR ING THE GOODS IN THEIR OWN COTTAGE S AND THEREFORE, THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE SOCIETY COULD ALSO BE CONSIDERED UNDER CLAUSE (II) OF SEC.80P(2)(A) OF THE ACT. VARIOUS DECISIONS WERE CITED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE CIT(A) IN SUPPORT OF ITS SUBMISSIONS. 4. HOWEVER, THE CIT(A) WAS NOT IMPRESSED. AC C ORDING TO HIM, FOR THE ACTIVITY OF ASSESSEE TO FALL WITHIN THE DEFINITION OF COTTAGE INDUSTRY , IT SHOULD BE CARRIED OUT BY THE MEMBERS OF THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY ITSE LF AND NOT BY THE MEMBERS OF ITS MEMBERS. THERE WAS NO DIRECT LINK OR NEXUS BETWEEN ASSESSEE SOCIETY ITA . 500 TO 503 /MDS/ 12 5 AND THE MEMBERS OF THE PRIMARY SOCIETIES. THEREFORE, IT COULD NOT BE CONSIDERED AS A SOCIETY ENGAGED IN A COTTAGE INDUSTRY. ACCORDING TO HIM, IN ORDER TO AVAIL THE BENEFIT OF SEC.80P(2)(A) OF THE A CT, T HE ASSESSEE MUST IT SELF ENGAGE IN THE SAID ACTIVITY . R ELYING ON THE DECISION OF APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF U.P. CO - OP. CANE UNION FEDERATION LTD. VS. CIT [1999] 237 ITR 57 4, LD. CIT(A) HELD THAT THE WORD MEMBERS COULD NOT BE EXTENDED TO MEMBER S OF THE MEMBERS AND THEREFORE, THE DEDUCTIONS AVAILABLE TO A PRIMARY SOCIETY W OULD NOT BE AVAILABLE TO THE APEX SOCIETY , IN WHICH SUCH PRIMARY SOCIETIES ALONE WERE THE MEMBERS. HE HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS RIGHTLY DENIED THE DEDUC TION UNDER SECTION 8 0P(2) OF THE ACT. HOWEVER IT IS TO BE NOTED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HELD THE DISALLOWANCE TO BE CORRECT UNDER SECTIONS 80P(2)(A)(I) AND 80P(2)(A)(II) OF THE ACT, BUT DID NOT MENTION ANYTHING REGARDING SEC.8 0P(2)(A)(VI), BASED ON WHICH ASSESSEE HAD PREFERRED THE CLAIM. 5 . NOW BEFORE US, LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE OF ASSESSEE STRONGLY ASSAILING THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES STATED THAT ASSESSEE S CLAIM WAS PRIMARILY UNDER CLAUSE(VI) OF SEC.80P(2)(A) OF THE ACT . ACCORDING TO HIM, MEMBERS OF PRIMARY S OCIETIES, WHO WERE THE MEMBERS OF THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY, WERE ENGAGED IN ITA . 500 TO 503 /MDS/ 12 6 COLLECTIVE DISPOSAL OF THE L ABOUR . O N ACCOUNT OF SUCH COLLE CTIVE DISPOSAL OF THE LABOUR, ASSESSEE HAD EARNED THE INCOME. YAR N WAS PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE. ASSESSEE BEING AN APEX SOCIETY, C O ULD TAKE ADVANTAGE OF COST BENE FIT ASSOCIATED WITH BULK PURCHASES. SUCH YARN WAS SOLD TO THE PRIMARY SOCIETIES, WHO IN TURN USED THEIR MEMBER S LABOUR FOR CONVERSION OF SUCH YARN TO HAND WOVEN CLOTH. SUCH HAND WOVEN CLOTH WAS AGAIN SOLD B Y THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY ON BEHALF OF ITS MEMBER SOCIETIES . THEREFORE, ACCORDING TO HIM, TO SAY THAT ASSESSEE SOCIETY WAS DOING SOMETHING ELSE OR ITS INCOME AROSE NOT OUT OF THE LABOUR OF THE MEMBERS OF THE PRIMARY SOCIETIES WOULD BE IN CORRECT. AS FOR TH E RELIANCE PLACED BY THE LOWER AUTHORITIES ON THE DECISION OF U.P. CO - OP. CANE UNION FEDERATION LTD.(SUPRA), LD. A.R . SUBMITTED THAT THERE WAS A SUBSEQUENT DECISION OF THE LARGER BENCH OF THE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF KERALA STATE CO - OPERATIVE MARKETING FEDERATION LTD. VS. CIT [1998] 231 ITR 8 1 4 WHERE IT WAS HELD THAT SECTION 80P DID NOT LIMIT THE SCOPE OF DEDUCTION TO THE INCOME RAISED BY THE MEMBERS AL O NE BUT ADMITTED A WIDER DEDUCTION. ACCORDING TO LD. A.R., THE FORMER DECISION OF THE APEX COURT IN THE U.P.CO - OP. CANE UNION FEDERATION LTD., WAS GIVEN RELYING ON ITS OWN EARLIER DECISION IN THE CASE OF ASSAM CO - OPERATIVE APEX MARKETING SOCIETY LTD. VS. ITA . 500 TO 503 /MDS/ 12 7 ADDL. CIT [1993] 201 ITR 338 (SC). FURTHER A CCORDING TO HIM, LARGER BENCH OF THE APEX COURT I N THE CASE OF KERALA STATE CO - OPERATIVE MARKETING FEDERATION LTD. (SUPRA) , HAD OVER - RULED ITS EARLIER DECISION IN THE ASSAM CO - OPERATIVE APEX MARKETING SOCIETY LTD.(SUPRA). THEREFORE, HIS SUBMISSION WAS THAT RELIANCE OUGHT NOT HAVE BEEN PLACED O N THE U.P .CO - OP. CANE UNION FEDERATION LTD. CASE. O N THE OTHER HAND, AS PER THE LD. A.R, ASSESSEE S CASE WAS SUPPORTED BY THE DECISION OF HON BLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF KERALA STATE CO - OPE RATIVE MARKETING FEDERATION LTD (SUPRA ). 6. PER CONTRA LD. D.R. STRO NGLY RELYING ON THE ORDER OF APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF U.P.CO - OP. CANE UNION FEDERATION LTD. SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE WAS NEITHER ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION UNDER CLAUSE (I) OF SECTION 80P(2) NOR CLAUSE (II) OF SECTION 80P(2), SINCE ITS MEMBERS WERE OTHER CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETIES. A SSESS EE COULD NOT SAY THAT ANY OF ITS MEMBERS WERE COLLECTIVELY DISPOSING OF ITS LABOUR OR IT WAS ENGAGED IN A COTTAGE INDUSTRY BY ITSELF. ASSESSEE WAS ONLY PURCHASING YARN AND SELLING CLOTH AND NOT ENGAGE D IN ANY COTTAGE INDUSTR Y. ASSESSEE WAS HAVING ONLY OTHER SOCIETIES AS ITS MEMBERS AND THEREFORE HAD NO LABO UR AT ITS DISP OSAL FOR COLLECTIVELY USING SUCH LABOUR. THEREFORE, ACCORDING ITA . 500 TO 503 /MDS/ 12 8 TO HIM, DECISION OF APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF U.P.CO - OP. CANE UNION FEDERATION LTD. (SUPRA) WAS RIGHTLY APP LIED BY THE LOWER AUTHORITIES WHILE DENYING THE DEDUCTION CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. 7 . WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AT LENGTH AND ALSO GONE THROUGH THE RELEVANT FINDINGS, AS ALSO THE CASE LAWS CITED (SUPRA). WHAT WE FIND IS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FOR ALL THE YEARS CLAIMED DEDUCTION U NDER SUB - CLAUSE(VI) OF SECTION 80P(2)(A) OF THE ACT AND NOT UNDER SUB - CLAUSE (I) OR SUB - CLAUSE (II). SECTION 80P(2)(A) IS REPRODUCED HEREUNDER: - THE SUMS REFERRED TO IN SUB - SECTION (1) SHALL BE TH E FOLLOWING, NAMELY: - (A) IN THE CASE OF A CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETY ENGAGED IN - (I) [ CARRYING ON THE BUSINESS OF BANKING OR PROVIDING CREDIT FACIL ITIES TO ITS MEMBERS, OR (II) A COTTAGE INDUSTRY, OR (III) THE MARKETING OF THE AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE OF ITS MEMBERS, OR (IV) THE PURCHASE OF AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENTS, SEEDS, LIVESTOCK OR OTHER ARTICLES INTENDED FOR AGRICULTURE FOR THE PURPOSE OF SUPPLYING THEM TO ITS MEMBERS, OR (V) THE PROCESSING, WITHOUT THE AID OF POWER, OF THE AGRIC ULT URAL PRODUCE OF ITS MEMBERS [ OR] (VI) THE COLLECTIVE DISPOSAL OF THE LABOUR OF ITS MEMBERS, OR (VII) FISHING OR ALLIED ACTIVITIES, THAT IS T O SAY, THE CATCHING, CURING, PROCESSING, PRESERVING, STORING OR MARKETING OF FISH OR THE PURCHASE OF MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT IN CONNECTION THEREWITH FOR THE PURPOSE OF SUPPLYING THEM TO ITS MEMBERS, THE WHOLE OF THE AMOUNT OF PROFITS AND GAINS OF BUSINES S ATTRIBUTABLE TO ANY ONE OR MORE OF SUCH ACTIVITIES AS PER THE ABOVE PROVISION, A CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80P(2) IS AVAILABLE ONLY ON INCOME OF A CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETY ENGAGED IN THE TYPES OF AC TIVITIES MENTIONED IN CLAUSE S (I) TO (VI I ). ITA . 500 TO 503 /MDS/ 12 9 A SSESSEE DID MAKE AN ALTERNATIVE CLAIM BEFORE THE CIT(A) THAT IT COULD BE CONSIDERED ALSO AS ENGAGED IN A COTTAGE INDUSTRY , THEREBY MAKING IT ELIGIBLE FOR A CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SUB - CLAUSE (II) ALSO. CIT(A) WHILE DISPOSING OF THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE CAME TO A CONCLUSION THAT ASSESSEE WAS NOT ENGAGED IN A COTTAGE INDUSTRY, SINCE THERE WAS NO DIRECT NEXUS BETWEEN THE ACTIVITY OF ASSESSEE AND THE ACTIVITY OF ITS MEMBERS THEMSELVES. AS PER THE CIT(A), ASSESSEE WAS A CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETY WHERE ITS MEMBER S WERE ONL Y THE OTHER CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETIES . NEVERTHELESS, CIT(A) DID NOT DEAL WITH THE ISSUE WHETHER THE INCOME OF ASSESSEE COULD BE CONSIDER ED AS ARISING OUT OF COLLECTIVE DISPOSAL OF THE LABOUR OF ITS MEMBERS. NO DOUBT, IN THE CASE OF U.P.CO - OP. CANE UNION FEDERATION LTD(SUPRA), IT WAS HELD BY THE APEX COURT THAT INTENTION OF THE PARLIAME NT WHILE ENACTING SEC.80P(2) (A)(I) WAS TO EXTEND THAT EXEMPTION TO CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETIES DIRECTLY EXTENDING CREDIT FACILITIES TO THEIR MEMBE RS. THEIR LORDSHIPS HE LD THAT EXPRESSION MEMBERS COUL D NOT BE EXTENDED TO INCLUDE MEMBERS OF A PRIMARY CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETY, WHICH WAS THE MEMBER OF A FEDERATED CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETY SEEKING EXEMPTION. OF COURSE, THE CLAIM IN THE SAID CASE WAS UNDER SEC.80P(2)(A)(I) OF THE AC T. HOWEVER, THE DICTUM OF LAW LAID DOWN BY THE APEX COU RT IN THE SAID CASE WAS THAT BENEFITS AVAILABLE TO A PRIMARY CO - OPERATIVE ITA . 500 TO 503 /MDS/ 12 10 SOCI E TY UNDER SECTION 80P(2) COULD NOT BE EXTENDED TO AN APEX SOCIETY, WHICH WAS HAVING PRIMARY SOCIETIES AS ITS MEMBERS. TH IS DECISION DATED 30 TH JANUAR Y , 1997 OF APEX COURT WAS BASED ON AN EARLIER DECISION OF THE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF ASSAM CO - OPERATIVE APEX MARKETING SOCIETY LTD.(SUPRA). AT P ARA - 10 OF THE JUDGEMENT, HON BLE APEX COURT HAD MADE A DIRECT REFERENCE TO IT S DECISION IN THE CASE OF ASSAM CO - OPERATIVE APEX MARKETING SOCIETY LTD. A N D ALSO REPRODUCED THE FINDING IN THE LATTER CASE. 8 . PITTED AGAINST THE ABOVE DECISION OF THE HON BLE APEX COURT IS A LARGER BENCH DECISION IN THE CASE OF U.P.CO - OP. CANE UNION F EDERATION LTD (SUPRA) WHERE THE QUESTION WAS W HETHER THE CONCERNED CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETY WAS ENTITLED TO DEDUCTION U NDER CLAUSE (III) OF SECTION 80P (2)(A) IN RESPECT OF PURCHASES MADE FROM MEMBERS SOCIETY. AFTER REFERRING ITS OWN EARLIER DECISION IN THE CAS E OF ASSAM CO - OPERATIVE APEX MARKETING SOCIETY LTD.(SUPRA), IT HELD THAT THE LA T TER DECISION REQUIRED RE - CONSIDERATION . P ARA - 14 OF THE JUDGEMENT OF HON BLE APEX COURT IN KERALA STATE CO - OPERATIVE MARKETING FEDERATION LTD IS REPRODUCED HEREUNDER: - THE ATTE NTION OF THIS COURT DOES NOT SEEM TO HAVE BEEN DRAWN TO THE AFORESAID DECISIONS WHILE DECIDING ASSAM CO - OP. SOCIETY S CASE. WITH RESPECT, WE THEREFORE, HOLD THAT ITA . 500 TO 503 /MDS/ 12 11 THE VIEW TAKEN THEREIN REQUIRES RECONSIDERATION AS STATED EARLIER BY US. IN THE RESULT, THE ORDER OF THE KERALA HIGH COURT FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THIS COURT IN ASSAM CO - OPERATIVE APEX MARKETING SOCIETY LTD. IS REVERSED. WE HOLD THAT THE SOCIETY ENGAGED IN THE MARKETING OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE OF ITS MEMBERS WOULD MEAN NOT ONLY SUCH SOCIETIES W HICH DEAL WITH THE PRODUCE RAISED BY THE MEMBERS WHO ARE INDIVIDUALS FOR SOCIETIES WHICH ARE MEMBERS THEREOF WHO MAY HAVE PURCHASED SUCH GOODS FROM THE AGRICULTURISTS. THUS, WE ALLOW THE CIVIL APPEAL BY SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER MAD E B Y THE HIGH COURT AND AN SWERING THE QUESTION REFER R ED TO US IN THE AFFIRMATIVE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND AGAINST THE REVENUE. THERE SHALL BE NO ORDER AS TO COST. IT IS CLEAR THAT LOWER AUTHORITIES WHILE DECIDING THE ISSUE DID NOT TAKE IN TO CONSIDERATION THE JUDGEMNET IN KERALA STATE CO - OPERATIVE MARKETING FEDERATION LTD. THE SAID JUDG EMENT WAS RENDERED ON 13 TH MAY, 1998. FURTHER, WE ALSO FIND THAT LOWER AUTHORITIES HAD NOT ANALYSED THE ACTIVITIES OF THE PRIMARY SOCIETIES WHICH WERE THE MEMBERS OF THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY TO FIND OUT UNDER WHICH CLAUSE OF SEC.80P(2)(A) ITS CLAIM COULD BE CONSIDERED. NO DOUBT, ASSESSEE HAD PREFERRED TH E CLAIM UNDER SECTION 80P(2)(A) (VI) . B UT NEVERTHELESS, IF ITS CLAIM FITTED IN IT TO ANY OTHER CLAUSE, SUCH CLAIM COULD N OT BE DENIED. A PROPER ANALYSIS OF THE ACTIVITIES OF THE PRIMARY SOCIETY AND THE SERVICES ITA . 500 TO 503 /MDS/ 12 12 RENDERED BY THE CO - OPE RATIVE SOCIETY IS REQUIRED FOR ADJUDICATION OF THE CASE. R ELEVANT FACTS ARE NOT BEFORE US . T HEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE MATTER REQUIRES A REVISIT BY TH E ASSESSING OFFICER. WE THEREFORE, SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND REMIT THE ISSUE REGARDING THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION MADE B Y THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 80P (2)(A) BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR CONSIDERATION OF AFRESH IN A CCORDANCE WITH LAW. ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL CONSIDER ALL THE DECISIONS OF HON BLE APEX COURT , AS AL SO OTHER AUTHORITIES AND GIVE THE ASSESSEE A PROPER OPPORTUNITY , BEFORE FINALIZING THE ASSESSMENTS. 9 . IN THE RESULT, APPEALS OF ASSESSEE FOR ALL THE YEAR S ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT AF TER CONCLUSION OF HEARING ON THURSDAY, THE 18 TH OCTOBER , 2012. SD/ - SD/ - (VIKAS AWASTHY) ( ABRAHAM P GEORGE ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTAN T MEMBER CHENNAI, DATED 18 TH OCTOBER , 2012 . K S SUNDARAM COPY TO: ASSESSEE / AO / CIT (A) / CIT / D.R. / GUARD FILE ITA . 500 TO 503 /MDS/ 12 13