Dy. Commissioner of Income tax, GONDA V. M/S Co-operative Care Development Union Ltd.,

ITA 724/LKW/2011

• Counselvise Citation: 72423714 RSA 2011
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 6 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-06-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 29-05-2014
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 09-12-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH B, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.724/LKW/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2007 - 08 DY.C.I.T., GONDA. VS. M/S CO - OPERATIVE CANE DEVELOPMENT UNION LIMITED, TULSIPUR, BALRAMPUR. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY SHRI AJAY KUMAR, D.R. RESPONDENT BY SHRI RAKESH GARG, ADVOCATE DATE OF HEARING 29/05/2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 1 3 /06/2014 O R D E R PER A. K. GARODIA, A.M. THIS IS REVENUES APPEAL DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY LEARNED CIT (A) - II, LUCKNOW DATED 21/09/2011 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 - 2008. 2. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE ARE AS UNDER: 1. THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) - II, LUCKNOW IS NOT JUSTIFIED BY ALLOWING THE EXEMPTION OF SECTION 80P ON INCOME (INTEREST ON INVESTMENT AND FDRS) EARNED BY THE DEPOSIT OF THE INCOME (NET PROFIT OF SOCIETY) WHICH IS EXEMPTED U/S 80P. THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) - II, LU CKNOW IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN ALLOWING THE EXEMPTION OF INCOME WHICH HAS ARISEN THROUGH EXEMPTED INCOME AND THUS RESULTING IN THE BENEFIT OF DOUBLE EXEMPTION. 2 2. ANY OTHER GROUND RAISED WITH THE PERMISSION OF HON'BLE I.T.A.T. 3. LEARNED D.R. OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHEREAS LEARNED A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF CIT(A). HE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THIS ISSUE IS SQUARELY COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE TRIBUNAL DECISION IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004 - 05 IN I.T.A. NO.167 AND 168/LKW/09 DATED 18/05/2009. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE COPY OF THE TRIBUNAL DECISION IS AVAILABLE ON PAGE NO. 11 TO 20 OF THE PAPER BOOK. 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVA ILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND THE TRIBUNAL DECISION CITED BY LEARNED A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE. WE FIND THAT IN THIS TRIBUNAL ORDER, THE TRIBUNAL HAS NOTED ANOTHER TRIBUNAL DECISION DATED 20/04/2007 RENDERED IN ASSES SEES OWN CASE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003 - 04 IN I.T.A. NO.124 AND 129/LKW/07. PARA 9 OF THE TRIBUNAL D ECISION HAS BEEN REPRODUCED IN THIS ORDER FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004 - 05. IN THAT PARA 9 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003 - 04, IT WAS NOTED BY THE TRIBUNAL THAT AS PE R THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE, IT WAS HELD THAT THE ACTIVITY OF THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY IN KEEPING THE CASH WITH BANK IS NORMAL STEP IN CARRYING ON OR CARRYING OUT OF HIS BUSINESS AND THEREFORE, THE INTEREST EARNED HAD DIRECT NEXUS WITH THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE AND CANNOT BE EQUATED WITH THE INTEREST EARNED FROM SURPLUS FUNDS. IT WAS HELD THAT THEREFORE, IT WAS ENTITLED FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80P OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF THESE INCOMES. CONSIDERING THESE DECISIONS, IT IS SEEN THAT THE ISSUE INVOLVED IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY EARLIER TRIBUNAL DECISION AND ALSO BY THE JUDGMENT OF 3 HON'BLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT RENDERED IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE. HENCE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE IN THE ORDER OF CI T(A). 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE STANDS DISMISSED. (ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONED ON THE CAPTION PAGE) SD/. SD/. (SUNIL KUMAR YADAV) ( A. K. GARODIA ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 1 3 /06/2014. *C.L.SINGH COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. CONCERNED CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. D.R., I.T.A.T., LUCKNOW ASSTT. REGISTRAR