M/s Paliwal Ice & Cold Store, Firozabad V. Dy.C.I.T., Circle-5, Firozabad

ITA 76/AGR/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 117 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0480 (ITAT-AGRA)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 year(s) 2 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Cross Objection
• Pronouncement Date: 16-05-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 11-01-2013
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 27-02-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: KK MISHRA
• Keywords: Business income; Rule of consistency; Set aside
• Section: 143(3); 80IB; 263; 2

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AGRA BENCH, AGRA BEFORE : SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.L. GEHLOT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 76/AGRA/2012 ASSTT. YEAR : 2007-08 PALIWAL ICE & COLD STORAGE, VS. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE -5, VILLAGE & P.O. KOTKI, FIROZABAD. TUNDLA ETAH ROAD, TUNDLA. (PAN : AAEFP 7281 N) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI SAHIB P. SATSANGEE, C.A. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI K.K. MISHRA, JR. D.R. DATE OF HEARING : 11.01.2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER : 29.01.2013 ORDER PER BHAVNESH SAINI, J.M.: THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST TH E ORDER OF LD. CIT(A)-II, AGRA DATED 12.10.2011 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007- 08. 2. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. REPRESENTATIVES OF BOTH TH E PARTIES, PERUSED THE FINDINGS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW AND CONSIDERED THE MA TERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. 3. THE ASSESSEE ON GROUND NO.1 TO 4 HAS CHALLENGED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW IN NOT ALLOWING THE DEDUCTION OF RS.2,96,868/- U/S. 80IB(11) OF THE IT ACT. ON GROUND NO. 5, THE ASSESSEE RAISED AL TERNATE CLAIM OF SET OFF OF ITA NO. 76/AGRA/2012 2 INTEREST U/S. 57(III) OF THE IT ACT IN CASE THE DED UCTION IS NOT ALLOWED ON INTEREST U/S. 80IB(11) OF THE IT ACT. 4. BRIEFLY, THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE HAT THE ASSES SEE FILED RETURN OF INCOME AT RS.8,90,610/-. FROM THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME FILED WITH THE RETURN OF INCOME, IT WAS NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S. 80IB(11) OF THE IT ACT AMOUNTING TO RS.2,96,868/- WORKED OUT AT THE RATE O F 25% OF GROSS TOTAL INCOME AMOUNTING TO RS.11,87,473/-. THE ACCOUNTS FURTHER R EVELED THAT THE SAME WAS CREDITED, BESIDES THE RENT RECEIVED FROM THE STORAG E OF POTATOES AND THE INTEREST INCOME AMOUNTING TO RS.11,40,667/-. THE AO WAS OF T HE VIEW THAT SINCE THE INTEREST EARNED ON DEPOSITS IS ASSESSABLE UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ENTITLED FOR DEDUCTI ON U/S. 80IB ON THIS AMOUNT. SHOW CAUSE NOTICE WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE AS TO WHY D EDUCTION U/S. 80IB(11) MAY NOT BE DISALLOWED ON THE AMOUNT OF INTEREST INCOME. THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED BEFORE THE AO THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT CARRY OUT ANY OTHER BU SINESS ACTIVITY DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION EXCEPT THE BUSINESS ACTIVITIES OF RUNNING AND MANAGING COLD CHAIN FACILITY FOR STORAGE OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT INTEREST INCOME OF RS.11,31,428/- WAS EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE FIRM ON AMOUNTS ADVANCED TO THE FARMERS AND RS.9239/- REPRESENTED T HE INTEREST ON FDRS. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE FIRM THAT FINANCING TO THE FARMERS WAS AN INTEGRAL PART OF BUSINESS OF ASSESSEE FIRM AS THE WORD COLD CHAIN FACILITY MEANS A CHAIN OF ITA NO. 76/AGRA/2012 3 FACILITIES. IT WAS EXPLAINED THAT ADVANCE AND LOANS TO THE FARMERS, ON WHICH INTEREST WAS EARNED WAS INTEGRAL PART OF BUSINESS ACTIVITIES OF THE ASSESSEE AND THEREFORE, IT IS A BUSINESS INCOME ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S. 80 IB(11). IT WAS SUBMITTED IN ALTERNATE SUBMISSIONS THAT IF THE INTEREST INCOME W AS TO BE ASSESSED UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES, THE SAME SHOULD BE NETTE D FROM THE INTEREST PAID AND RESULTANT FIGURE SHOULD BE CONSIDERED AS INCOME FRO M OTHER SOURCES. THE AO, HOWEVER, DID NOT ACCEPT THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSE SSEE BECAUSE THE INTEREST INCOME IS ASSESSABLE UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOUR CES AND RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF PA NDIAN CHEMICALS LTD., 129 TAXMAN 539. THE ALTERNATE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSE E WAS ALSO REJECTED FOR SET OFF OF INTEREST AGAINST THE INTEREST PAID TO THE BANKS BY RELYING UPON THE DECISION OF SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF DR. V.P. GOPINATHAN, 1 16 TAXMAN 489. THEREFORE, IT WAS HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ENTITLED FOR ANY DEDUCTION UNDER THE ABOVE PROVISION OR FOR SET OFF AGAINST THE INTEREST PAID. THE AO FURTHER NOTED THAT THE IDENTICAL ISSUE CAME UP FOR CONSIDERATION U/S. 80IB (11) IN THE PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 IN WHICH THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE WAS ALL OWED BY THE AO, BUT SUBSEQUENTLY, LD. CIT-II, AGRA REVISED THE ORDER U/ S. 263 OF THE IT ACT DIRECTING TO WITHDRAW THE CLAIM BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ENTI TLED FOR SUCH DEDUCTION U/S. 80IB(11) OF THE IT ACT. THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS RE -FRAMED AFTER DENYING THE DEDUCTION U/S. 80IB(11). THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED APP EAL BEFORE THE ITAT AGAINST THE ORDER U/S. 263 OF THE IT ACT AND THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ORDER DATED 24.10.2008 HELD THAT ITA NO. 76/AGRA/2012 4 CLAIM OF ASSESSEE SHOULD BE ALLOWED U/S. 80IB(11) O F THE ACT. THE AO FURTHER NOTED THAT THE DEPARTMENT HAS NOT ACCEPTED THE ORDE R OF TRIBUNAL AND FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE HONBLE HIGH COURT AND THEREFORE, FOR KE EPING THE ISSUE ALIVE, THE DEDUCTION U/S. 80IB CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE ALLOWED. THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED THE APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). HOWEVER , THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WAS DISMISSED BY THE LD. CIT(A). 5. THE ASSESSEE IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL CHALLENGED THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) FOR DENYING DEDUCTION U/S. 80IB(11) BECAUSE ON MERE LY GETTING THE ISSUE ALIVE, SUCH BENEFIT SHOULD NOT BE DENIED TO THE ASSESSEE AND IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE AO SHOULD FOLLOW THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN VIEW OF THE PRINCIPLE OF JUDICIAL PRECEDENCE. IT IS ALSO STATED THAT FINANCING TO THE FARMERS WAS INTEGRAL PART OF BUSINESS ACTIVITIES OF THE ASSESSEE AS IT WAS ENGAG ED IN PROVIDING COLD CHAIN FACILITY TO THE FARMERS AND THE SAME VIEW HAS BEEN TAKEN BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF THE SAME ASSESSEE. IN THE ALTERNATE CONTENTION, IT IS S TATED THAT IN CASE INTEREST INCOME ON FINANCING OF LOAN TO THE FARMERS IS CONSIDERED A S INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES, SET OFF MAY BE ALLOWED AGAINST THE INTEREST PAID BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE BORROWED FUNDS. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE C ARRIED OUT BUSINESS ACTIVITIES OF RUNNING AND MANAGING COLD CHAIN FACILITY FOR STORAG E OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE ONLY IN ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL. INTEREST IS EARNED ON ADVANCES GIVEN TO THE ITA NO. 76/AGRA/2012 5 FARMERS WHO HAVE STORED THEIR POTATOES IN COLD STOR AGE OF THE ASSESSEE. IN THE PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04, THE AO ALLOWED S IMILAR CLAIM OF ASSESSEE U/S. 80IB(11) VIDE ORDER U/S. 143(3) DATED 20.01.2005. S IMILARLY IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05, SIMILAR CLAIM WAS ALLOWED BY THE AO U/S. 1 43(3) DATED 12.05.2005 AND IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06, SIMILAR DEDUCTION WAS ALLO WED BY THE AO VIDE ORDER U/S. 143(3) DATED 26.12.2007 AND SAME ORDER HAS BEEN CON FIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A)-II, AGRA VIDE ORDER DATED 20.08.2010 AND NO APPEAL HAS BEEN PREFERRED BY THE REVENUE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. THE ORDER OF THE ITAT, AGRA BE NCH AGAINST THE ORDER U/S. 263 OF THE IT ACT, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 DATE D 24.10.2008 IN ITA NO. 231/AGR./2007 IS FILED IN PB-ONE PAGE 16. THE LD. C OUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT SINCE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN ALLOWED IN THE PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR, THEREFORE, ON THE PRINCIPLE OF CON SISTENCY, THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL. HE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT IN TRADING OF PO TATOES, THEREFORE, THE DECISION OF ITAT, AGRA BENCH IN THE CASE OF M/S. RASTOGI COLD S TORAGE DATED 14.09.2012 IS NOT APPLICABLE IN WHICH THE ASSESSEE WAS FOUND TO B E CLAIMING DEDUCTION U/S. 80IB(11) ON TRADING OF POTATOES. THEREFORE, THE CLA IM OF ASSESSEE WAS NOT ALLOWED. HE HAS SUBMITTED THAT INTEREST ON LOANS GIVEN TO TH E FARMERS WAS DISCLOSED AS BUSINESS INCOME BY THE ASSESSEE IN PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT AND HONBLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SAME ASSESSEE IN ASSESSME NT YEAR 2003-04 AND 2004-05 HAVE CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ALLOWIN G DEDUCTION U/S. 80IB(11) ON ITA NO. 76/AGRA/2012 6 SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER U/S. 263 OF THE IT ACT. COP IES OF THE ORDERS OF THE HIGH COURT DATED 03.11.2011 ARE FILED IN PAPER BOOK AT PAGES 7 8 TO 81. IN THE ALTERNATE CONTENTION, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITER ATED THE SAME SUBMISSIONS AND SUBMITTED THAT EARNING OF INTEREST HAS DIRECT NEXUS WITH THE BUSINESS OF ASSESSEE AND IN CASE THE INTEREST IS NOT ALLOWED AS DEDUCTION U/ S. 80IB(11), THEN SET OFF MAY BE GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE INTEREST PAID AND BALANCE MAY BE CONSIDERED AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ALSO RELIED UPON FOLLOWING DECISIONS : (I). DECISION OF DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF C IT VS. ADVANCE DETERGENTS LTD., 339 ITR 81, IN WHICH IT WAS HELD INTEREST RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE ON OVERDUE PAYMEN TS FROM THE CUSTOMERS IS TO BE CONSIDERED AS PROFITS AND GA INS DERIVED FROM INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION UNDER S. 80IA. (II). DECISION OF BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. VIDYUT CORPORATION, 324 ITR 221, IN WHICH IT WAS HELD BILL DISCOUNTING CHARGES REIMBURSED BY THE PURCHASE RS TO THE ASSESSEE BEING A COMPONENT OF INTEREST TOWARDS DELA YED PAYMENT OF THE PRICE OF THE GOODS SOLD, FORM A COMPONENT OF TH E SALE PRICE AND IT IS PAID TOWARDS THE DELAY WHICH HAS OCCURRED IN THE PAYMENT OF THE PRICE, HENCE ASSESSEE IS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION UND ER S. 80IB IN RESPECT OF BILL DISCOUNTING CHARGES. ITA NO. 76/AGRA/2012 7 (III). DECISION OF M.P. HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. PRAKASH OILS LTD., 58 DTR 279, IN WHICH IT WAS HELD INTEREST ON DELAYED PAYMENT OF SALE AMOUNT IS ELIGI BLE FOR DEDUCTION UNDER S. 80IA; FURTHER, DURING THE COURSE OF THE BUSINESS THE ASSESSEE RECEIVES/PAY LIQUIDATED DAMAGES FOR NOT HO NOURING A CONTRACT FOR SALE OF PRODUCTS AND THEREFORE, SUCH I NCOME IS DIRECTLY DERIVED FROM THE INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING ELIGIBLE FO R DEDUCTION UNDER S. 80IA. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR RELIED UPON THE ORDER S OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 6. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. DEDUCTION U/S. 80IB(11) IS ALLOWABLE IN CASE OF IND USTRIAL UNDERTAKING DERIVING PROFIT FROM BUSINESS OF SETTING UP AND OPERATING A COLD CHAIN FACILITY FOR AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED BEFORE T HE AO THAT DURING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED ON THE BUSINESS ACTIVITIES OF RUNNING AND OPERATING COLD CHAIN FACILITY FOR STORA GE OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE AND NO OTHER BUSINESS ACTIVITIES HAVE BEEN CONDUCTED BY TH E ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE EARNED INTEREST INCOME OF RS.11,31,428/- ON THE AMOUNT ADV ANCED TO THE FARMERS. ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUCH LOANS WERE GIVEN BY THE BANKS TO THE ASSESSEE FOR PROVIDING THE SAME TO THE FARME RS, DETAILS OF WHICH ARE FILED AT PAGES 34 TO 37 OF THE PAPER BOOK, IN WHICH PRIME SE CURITY OF THE LOAN WERE HYPOTHECATION OF RECEIVABLES/BOOK DEBIT ARISING OUT OF ADVANCES TO THE FARMERS FOR STORAGE OF AGRICULTURAL COMMODITIES AND OUT OF WHIC H 30% COULD BE ADVANCED TO ITA NO. 76/AGRA/2012 8 THE FARMERS. THE PURPOSE OF ADVANCING THE LOAN TO T HE FARMERS IS STATED TO BE THAT SUCH LOAN SHOULD NOT EXCEED RS.2,00,000/- OR 70% OF THE VALUE OF PRODUCE STORED WHICHEVER IS LOWER. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSE E SUBMITTED THAT SINCE GRANTING OF LOAN TO THE FARMERS WHO HAVE STORED THEIR AGRICU LTURAL PRODUCE IN THE COLD STORAGE OF THE ASSESSEE IS CONNECTED WITH THE OPERA TION OF THE COLD CHAIN FACILITY FOR AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE. THEREFORE, IT WAS INTEGRAL PA RT OF BUSINESS ACTIVITIES OF THE ASSESSEE. THE AO ACCEPTED THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04, 2004-05 AND 2005-06 IN THE REGULAR ASSESSMENT ORDER S PASSED U/S. 143(3). COPIES OF THE ORDERS ARE FILED IN THE PAPER BOOK AND REVEN UE DID NOT DISPUTE THE SAME. THUS, IDENTICAL CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE HAS ALREADY B EEN ACCEPTED BY THE AO. HOWEVER, IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04, THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS REVISED BY THE CIT U/S. 263 OF THE IT ACT AND CLAIM OF ASSESSEE HA S BEEN DENIED, BUT ON FURTHER APPEAL TO THE TRIBUNAL, THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE HAS B EEN ACCEPTED BY ITAT, AGRA BENCH IN THE CASE OF SAME ASSESSEE IN ITA NO. 231/A GR./2007 DATED 24.10.2008. THE AO, HOWEVER, DID NOT ACCEPT THE CLAIM OF ASSESS EE BECAUSE THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 HAS NOT BE EN ACCEPTED BY THE DEPARTMENT, AS THE APPEAL HAS BEEN PREFERRED BEFORE THE HONBLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT. HOWEVER, HONBLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO. 231/AGR./2 007 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04, VIDE ORDER DATED 03.11.2011. COPIES OF THE ORDERS OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT ARE FILED IN THE PAPER BOOK-77 TO 82. THUS, I T IS CLEAR THAT THE REVENUE ITA NO. 76/AGRA/2012 9 DEPARTMENT ACCEPTED THE IDENTICAL CLAIM OF ASSESSEE IN PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEARS AND WHEREVER THE CIT REVISED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER U /S. 263, THE REVENUE MET WITH THE SAME FATE BECAUSE THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE HAS BEE N ALLOWED BY THE TRIBUNAL AND THE DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL HAS BEEN DISMISSED BY THE H ONBLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT. THUS, THE SOLE REASON OF THE AO TO DENY THE SIMILAR DEDUCTION TO THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF FILING OF APPEAL BEFORE THE HONBLE ALLA HABAD HIGH COURT DISAPPEARED AND REASONS FOR DENYING SIMILAR CLAIM OF ASSESSEE W OULD NOT EXIST ON DISMISSAL OF DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL BY THE HONBLE HIGH COURT. IT I S WELL SETTLED LAW THAT THOUGH THE PRINCIPLE OF RES JUDICATA WOULD NOT APPLY TO TH E INCOME TAX PROCEEDINGS, BUT THE PRINCIPLE OF CONSISTENCY SHALL HAVE TO BE FOLLOWED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES WHILE PASSING THE ORDER IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE. WE RELY UPON THE DECISION OF M.P. HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF GODAVARI CORPORATION 156 ITR 835, THE DECISION OF DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ESCORTS LTD. 338 ITR 435, THE DECISION OF PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF VIKAS CHEMIGUM IN DIA, 276 ITR 32 AND THE DECISIONS OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASES OF RADHA SOAMI SATSANG VS. CIT, 193 ITR 321 AND UNION OF INDIA VS. SATISH PANNA LAL SHAH, 249 ITR 221. SINCE IN THE CASE OF THE SAME ASSESSEE, THE REVENUE DEPARTME NT ACCEPTED IDENTICAL CLAIM OF ASSESSEE IN THE EARLIER YEARS AS NOTED ABOVE IN REG ULAR ASSESSMENTS, THEREFORE, ON THE SAME FACTS, DEDUCTION U/S. 80IB(11) CANNOT BE D ENIED TO THE ASSESSEE. THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES SHALL HAVE TO FOLLOW THE PRINCI PLE OF CONSISTENCY AND TO ALLOW IDENTICAL DEDUCTION TO THE ASSESSEE. FURTHER, THE W HOLE CASE OF THE AO WAS ITA NO. 76/AGRA/2012 10 DEPENDING TO DENY SUCH DEDUCTION TO THE ASSESSEE BE CAUSE THE ORDER OF TRIBUNAL FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 HAVE NOT BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE DEPARTMENT AND THE APPEAL WAS PENDING BEFORE THE HIGH COURT. HOWEVER, SUCH REASONS DO NOT EXIST NOW, AS THE HONBLE HIGH COURT HAS DISMISSED THE AP PEAL OF THE REVENUE. THEREFORE, ASSESSEE WOULD BE ENTITLED FOR DEDUCTION ON THE AMOUNT OF INTEREST INCOME OF RS.11,31,428/-. THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORI TIES BELOW ARE ACCORDINGLY SET ASIDE AND THE AO IS DIRECTED TO GRANT DEDUCTION TO THE ASSESSEE U/S. 80IB(11) OF THE IT ACT ON THE INTEREST EARNED ON FINANCE PROVIDED T O THE FARMERS. GROUNDS NOS. 1 TO 4 OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ACCORDINGLY ALLOWED . IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FINDINGS, THERE IS NO NEED TO CONSIDER THE ALTERNATE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE OF SET OFF OF INTEREST U/S. 57(III) OF THE IT ACT. AS A RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- SD/- (A.L. GEHLOT) (BHAVNESH SAINI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER *AKS/- COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT(A), CONCERNED BY ORDER 4. CIT, CONCERNED 5. DR, ITAT, AGRA 6. GUARD FILE SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY TRUE COPY