PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF I T JAIPUR Vs. M/S SIKAR SAHAKARI BHOOMI VIKAS BANK LT
LAWS(RAJ)-2016-12-79
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
Decided on December 20,2016

Principal Commissioner Of I T Jaipur Appellant
VERSUS
M/S Sikar Sahakari Bhoomi Vikas Bank Lt Respondents

JUDGEMENT

K.S.JHAVERI,J. - (1.) By way of these appeals, the appellant has challenged the judgment and order passed by the Tribunal whereby the Tribunal has granted benefit to the respondent-assessee.
(2.) The issue involved in this bunch of appeals is as to whether the assessee is entitled to avail direction under section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act. The identical issue has been decided by this Court in D.B. Income Tax Appeal No.139/2002 in Commissioner of Income Tax, Bikaner v. M/s Rajasthan Rajya Sahakari , decided on 01.09.2016, which reads as under:- 2. 1 The case of the department is that the assessee claimed benefit under Section 80P(2) (a)(iv) and 80P(2)(d)of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which reads as under:- "80P(1) . (2) (a). (iv) the purchase of agricultural implements, seeds, livestock or other articles intended for agricultural for the purpose of supplying them to its members, or"
(3.) It manifests from the material on record that the assessing officer while considering the law prevailing at the relevant point of time for the assessment years in question has rejected the claim of the assessee in view of the judgment in Assam Co-operative Apex Marketing Society Ltd. v. Additional CIT: (1993) 113 CTR (SC) 58 , which came to be further confirmed by the CIT (Appeals) while dismissing the appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the Assessing Officer. However, the tribunal has also thoroughly examined the matter in detail in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in Kerala State Co-operative Marketing Federation Ltd. and Ors. ETC. v. Commissioner of Income Tax: (1998) 147 CTR 0029 . The Supreme Court in the judgment aforesaid in Paragraphs 5 and 7 has observed as under:- "5. We have carefully considered the rival submissions of the parties perused the material placed on record and also the judgements relied upon by them. We find that the AO and the CTT(A) have rejected the claim of the assessee of allowing deduction under section 80P(2)(iv) in view of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Assam Co-operative Apex Marketing Federation Ltd. 201 ITR 338 (supra). We also find that this judgement has been impliedly overruled by the Apex Court in the case of Kerala State Cooperative Marketing Federation Ltd. and Others 231 ITR 814 (supra), wherein at Page No. 825 it was held as under:- "We hold that the society engaged in the marketing of agricultural produce of its members would mean only such societies which deal with the produce raised by the members who are individuals or societies which members thereof who may have purchased such goods from the agriculturists. Thus, we allow the civil appeal by setting aside the order made by the High Court and answering the question referred to us in the affirmative in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue". Respectfully following the above judgement, we direct the AO to consider the claim of the assessee as per provisions of Section 80P(2)(a)(iv) and allow the deduction according to law. 7. The Id. A.R. Submits that the assessee has received interest from other Co-operative Societies/Banks and after deduction the interest paid to State Government on loan, the net amount of interest amounting to Rs. 58,84,711.46 was shown as interest income and claimed as deduction under section 80P(2)(d). This deduction was disallowed by the AO on the ground that the 4 interest income has been earned out of any investment but the same is a result of running current account with various Co-operative Banks, which cannot be held to be the investment. The CTT(A) has also confirmed the disallowance. He further submits that the interest income has been earned from short-term deposits with Co-operative Banks and Co-operative Societies and is fully exempted under section 80P(2) (d). The CTT(A), in the subsequent assessment year, i.e., assessment year 1993-94, has allowed the same. The reliance was also placed upon the judgement of Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Haryana State Co-operative Housing Society (1998) 234 ITR 714. ";


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.