Appeal details
Counselvise Citation
[2023] 100 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2203 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
Duration Of Justice
5 month(s) 6 day(s)
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date
29-10-2023
Appeal Filed By
Assessee
Order Result
Dismissed
Bench Allotted
A
Next Hearing Date
29-10-2023
Assessment Year
2018-2019
Appeal Filed On
23-05-2023
Judgement Text
आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘ए’ यायपीठ, चे ई।
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
‘A’ BENCH: CHENNAI
ी महावीर िसंह, माननीय उपा, एवं
ी मंजूनाथा.जी, माननीय लेखा सद
के सम
BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, HON’BLE VICE PRESIDENT AND
SHRI MANJUNATHA.G, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.656/Chny/2023
िनधारण वष /Assessment Year: 2018-19
A 1235 Madurai taluk Agricultural-
Producers Co-operative-
Marketing Society Ltd.,
31, Visuvasapuri, 3
rd
Street,
Gnanaolivupuram,
Madurai.
[PAN: AAAAA 9671 J]
v.
The Income Tax Officer,
Non-Corporate Ward-1(1),
Madurai.
(अपीलाथ/Appellant) (यथ/Respondent)
अपीलाथ क ओर से/ Appellant by
:
None
यथ क ओर से /Respondent by
:
Shri AR.V.Sreenivasan,
Addl.CIT
सुनवाई क तारीख/Date of Hearing
:
30.10.2023
घोषणा क तारीख /Date of Pronouncement
:
30.10.2023
आदेश / O R D E R
PER MANJUNATHA.G, AM:
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the
Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Income Tax Department, National
Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated 24.03.2023, and pertains to
assessment year 2018-19.
2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:
1) The order of the learned CIT(A) is bad and erroneous in law.
ITA No.656/Chny/2023
A 1235 Madurai taluk Agricultural Producers Co-op. Marketing Society Ltd
:: 2 ::
2) The learned CIT(A) erred in not considering the replies filed by the appellant in proper
perspective.
3) The learned CIT(A) erred in restricting the deduction claimed u/s. 80P(2)(c) at
Rs.50,000/-, without considering the effect of the decision of the SC reported in 1981 (4)
SCC 535, wherein the societies involved in PDS activities were termed/classified as
"Consumer Societies".
4) The learned CIT(A) erred in not considering the fact that the PDS margin, related to the
PDS activities of the appellant, is attributable to the other activities of the appellant society,
falling within Section 80P(2)(a)(i). [Reliance is placed on the decisions by the Madras HC
reported in TCA No: 1453 of 2008 dated 31/10/20-18 and TCA No: 571 of 2011 dated
01/11/2018.]
5) Without prejudice to the above, the learned CIT(A) erred in disallowing the deduction
claimed in respect of PDS margin, falling within "Commission", without considering the
decision reported in 1995 Tax L.R. 1308 (i.e.) CIT vs. The Coimbatore District Central Co-
operative Supply and Marketing Society Limited.
And for other reasons that may be adduced at the time of hearing, the appellant prays that
this appeal be admitted, considered and justice be rendered.
3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a Co-Operative
Marketing Society filed its return of income for AY 2018-19 on 25.10.2018
declaring ‘nil’ total income after claiming exemption u/s.80P(2)(a)(i) of the
Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act"). The case was selected for
scrutiny and during the course of assessment proceedings, the AO noticed
that the assessee has derived commission income from Public Distribution
System as an Agent of Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Cooperation, amounting
to Rs.1,00,000/- and claimed exemption u/s.80P(2)(c) of the Act. The AO
after considering relevant submissions of the assessee opined that the
assessee is not a Consumer Co-operative Society, to be fall under Clause
(i) of Section 80P(2)(c) of the Act, and thus, restricted deduction to
Rs.50,000/- under clause (ii) to Section 80P(2)(c) of the Act. On appeal,
the Ld.CIT(A) rejected the arguments of the assessee and sustained the
additions made by the AO towards disallowance of deduction claimed
u/s.80P(2)(c) of the Act.
ITA No.656/Chny/2023
A 1235 Madurai taluk Agricultural Producers Co-op. Marketing Society Ltd
:: 3 ::
4. None appeared for the assessee. We have heard ld.DR and perused
relevant materials available on record, including the order of the AO and
the Ld.CIT(A). We find that the assessee has failed to file necessary
evidences to prove that it falls under Clause (i) to Sec.80P(2)(c) of the Act,
to be eligible for deduction of Rs.1,00,000/- towards income derived from
marketing activities. On the other hand, lower authorities have brought
out clear facts to the effect that the assessee’s case falls under Clause (ii)
of sec.80P(2)(c) of the Act, and allowed deduction to the extent of
Rs.50,000/-. In our considered view, there is no error in the reasons given
by the Ld.CIT(A) to restrict deduction allowed u/s.80P(2)(c) of the Act, and
thus, we are inclined to uphold the findings of the Ld.CIT(A) and dismiss
the appeal filed by the assessee.
5. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed.
Order pronounced on the 30
th
day of October, 2023, in Chennai.
Sd/-
(महावीर िसंह)
(MAHAVIR SINGH)
उपा /VICE PRESIDENT
Sd/-
(मंजूनाथा.जी)
(MANJUNATHA.G)
लेखा सदय/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
चे ई/Chennai,
दनांक/Dated: 30
th
October, 2023.
TLN
आदेश क ितिलिप अ ेिषत/Copy to:
1. अपीलाथ / Appellant 3. आयकर आयु" / CIT 5. गाड फाईल / GF
2. यथ / Respondent 4. िवभागीय ितिनिध / DR
