M/s Cooperative Cane Developement Union Ltd, Bahraich V. Income Tax Officer-1, Bahraich

ITA 96/LKW/2014

• Counselvise Citation: 9623714 RSA 2014
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 8 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-11-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 01-10-2015
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 19-02-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH A, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.96/LKW/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2009-10 M/S CO-OPERATIVE CANE DEVELOPMENT UNION LTD., BAHRAICH, DISTRICT-BAHRAICH. PAN:AAAAC8503F VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER-1, BAHRAICH. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ITA NO.806/LKW/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2010-11 M/S CO - OPERATIVE CANE DEVELOPMENT UNION LTD., AKBARPUR, AMBEDKAR NAGAR. PAN:AABAS9278A VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER - II, FAIZABAD. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ITA NO.567/LKW/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2010-11 INCOME TAX OFFICER, BASTI. VS. M/S CANE DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL, MUNDERWA, BASTI. PAN:AAAJC0617R (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ITA NO.568/LKW/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2010-11 INCOME TAX OFFICER, BASTI. VS. M/S CANE DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL, BABHNAN, BASTI. PAN:AAAAZ0217H (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) 2 ITA NO.517/LKW/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2011-12 M/S CO-OPERATIVE CANE DEVELOPMENT UNION LTD., JARWAL ROAD, DISTRICT-BAHRAICH. VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER-1, BAHRAICH. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) O R D E R PER BENCH: IN THIS BUNCH OF FIVE APPEALS, THERE IS ONE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN I.T.A. NO.96/LKW/2014 IN WHICH THE ONLY ISSUE INVOL VED IS REGARDING IMPOSITION OF PENALTY OF RS.1.50 LAC U/S 271B OF TH E ACT AND IN REMAINING FOUR APPEALS FOR FOUR DIFFERENT ASSESSEES, TWO APPE ALS ARE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND TWO APPEALS ARE FILED BY THE REVENUE B UT ONLY ONE COMMON ISSUE IS INVOLVED REGARDING ALLOWABILITY OF DEDUCTI ON U/S 80P OF THE ACT. ALL THESE APPEALS WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DIS POSED OF BY WAY OF THIS COMMON ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 2. FIRST WE TAKE UP THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 I.E. I.T.A. NO.96/LKW/2014. IN THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE, THERE IS ONLY ONE ISSUE I.E. REGARDING IMPOSITION OF PENA LTY OF RS.1.50 LAC U/S 271B OF THE ACT. 3. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY LEARNED A. R. OF THE ASSESSE E THAT THIS ISSUE IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE TRIBUNAL O RDER IN THE CASE OF U.P. CO-OPERATIVE CANE DEVELOPMENT UNION LIMITED IN I.T. A. NO.166 TO ASSESSEE BY SHRI J. N. SHUKLA, ADVOCATE REVENUE BY SHRI HARISH GIDWANI, D. R. DATE OF HEARING 01/10/2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 17/11/2015 3 170/LKW/11 DATED 07/07/2011 IN WHICH THE TRIBUNAL H AS FOLLOWED A JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE UTTRAKHAND HIGH COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. IQBALPUR CO-OPERATIVE CANE DEVELOPMENT UNION LTD. [ 2009] 179 TAXMAN 27. 4. LEARNED D. R. OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ORDER S OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FI ND THAT IN THE CASE OF U.P. CO-OPERATIVE CANE DEVELOPMENT UNION LIMITED (SUPRA), THE TRIBUNAL HAS FOLLOWED A JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE UTTRAKH AND HIGH COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. IQBALPUR CO-OPERATI VE CANE DEVELOPMENT UNION LTD. (SUPRA). THE TRIBUNAL HAS REPRODUCED TH E RELEVANT PARA OF THAT JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE UTTRAKHAND HIGH COURT AND AS PE R THE SAME, IT IS SEEN THAT IT WAS HELD BY HON'BLE UTTRAKHAND HIGH COURT T HAT SINCE NO TAX WAS PAYABLE BY THE ASSESSEE IN VIEW OF THE PROVISIONS O F SECTION 80P OF THE ACT, THE TRIBUNAL HAS COMMITTED NO ERROR OF LAW IN SETTI NG ASIDE THE PENALTY IMPOSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 271B. RESPECT FULLY FOLLOWING THIS JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE UTTRAKHAND HIGH COURT, THE TRIB UNAL HAS DELETED THE PENALTY IN THE CASE OF U.P. CO-OPERATIVE CANE DEVEL OPMENT UNION LIMITED (SUPRA) ALSO. IN THE PRESENT CASE ALSO, THE ASSESS EE IS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80P OF THE ACT AND THEREFORE, THESE J UDGMENTS CITED BY LEARNED A. R. OF THE ASSESSEE BEING THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE UTTRAKHAND HIGH COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. IQBALPUR CO-OPERATIVE CANE DEVELOPMENT UNION LTD. (SUPRA) AND THE TRIBUNAL ORD ER IN THE CASE OF U.P. CO-OPERATIVE CANE DEVELOPMENT UNION LIMITED (SUPRA) ARE SQUARELY APPLICABLE AND RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE SAME, WE DELETE THE PENALTY IN THE PRESENT CASE ALSO BECAUSE NO CONTRARY JUDGMENT WAS BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE STANDS ALLOWED. 4 7. NOW WE TAKE UP THE REMAINING FOUR APPEALS. ALTH OUGH, OUT OF THESE FOUR APPEALS, TWO APPEALS ARE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND TWO APPEALS ARE FILED BY THE REVENUE AND ALL THESE FOUR APPEALS ARE IN RESPECT OF FOUR DIFFERENT ASSESSEES BUT THE ISSUE INVOLVED IS ONLY ONE AS TO WHETHER DEDUCTION IS ALLOWABLE TO THE ASSESSEE OR NOT U/S 8 0P OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF INTEREST INCOME RECEIVED FROM BANK/POST OFFICE. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY LEARNED A. R. OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THIS ISSUE IS SQ UARELY COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE FOLLOWING TRIBUNAL ORDERS: (I) INCOME TAX OFFICER, GONDA VS. CO-OPERATIVE CANE DEVELOPMENT UNION LTD. IN I.T.A. NO.352/LKW/2011 DA TED 02/12/2011 (II) CANE DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL, CHILWARIA VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER IN I.T.A. NO.63/LKW/2014 DATED 31/03/2015 (III) CO-OP. CANE DEVELOPMENT UNION LTD. VS. DCIT IN I.T. A. NO.77/LKW/2013 DATED 23/01/2015. LEARNED A. R. OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED COPY OF ALL THESE TRIBUNAL ORDERS. 8. LEARNED D. R. OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ASSES SMENT ORDER IN ALL THESE CASES. 9. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FI ND THAT IT IS ADMITTED POSITION OF FACT THAT THE ONLY DISPUTE INV OLVED IN THESE APPEALS IS REGARDING ALLOWABILITY OF DEDUCTION U/S 80P OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF INTEREST INCOME EARNED ON DEPOSIT WITH BANK/POST OFFICE. AS PER THESE TRIBUNAL ORDERS CITED BY LEARNED A. R. OF THE ASSESSEE, COPI ES OF WHICH WERE PLACED ON RECORD, IT IS SEEN THAT IT WAS HELD BY THE TRIBU NAL IN THESE CASES THAT A CONSISTENT VIEW HAS BEEN TAKEN BY THE TRIBUNAL ON T HIS ISSUE THAT THE DEDUCTION IS ALLOWABLE U/S 80P OF THE ACT IN RESPEC T OF INTEREST INCOME EARNED OUT OF SURPLUS FUND LYING DEPOSITED IN POST OFFICE/COMMERCIAL BANK. NO CONTRARY DECISION WAS BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE AND HENCE, RESPECTFULLY 5 FOLLOWING THESE TRIBUNAL ORDERS, WE HOLD THAT IN TH E PRESENT CASE ALSO, THE ASSESSEE IS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80P OF THE A CT. 10. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE THREE APPEALS OF THE ASS ESSEE ARE ALLOWED AND BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE ARE 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 MEMB ER DATED:17/11/2015 *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