KESLA POULTRY SAHAKARI MY,SUKHTAWA vs. ACIT,CIRCLE ITARSI, ITARSI

Appellant by Shri Hitesh Chimnani, A.R. Respondent by Shri K.G. Goyal, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing: 13.08.2019 Date of Pronouncement: 27.09.2019 आदेश / O R D E R PER KUL BHARAT, J.M: These two appeals by the assessee are directed against common order of the CIT(A)-1, Bhopal dated 11.8.2017 for the assessment years 2013-14 & 2014-15. Since the issues are same and grounds are identical, the appeals

[ITA Nos.654&655/Ind/2017] [Kesla Poultry Sahakari Maryadit Pradan Campus, Skhtawa] were taken up together and are being disposed of by way of this consolidated order. First we take up ITA No.654/Ind/2017. In this appeal, the assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:

1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant’s case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs.11,68,222/- made by the Ld. A.P. u/s 80P(2)(vi) as claimed by the appellant in its return of total income.

2. Without prejudice to above, the Ld. CIT(A) failed to decide and consider the alternate claim of deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(iii) of the Income Tax Act as claimed by the appellant society. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a cooperative society which is engaged in the business of poultry farming. During the course of scrutiny proceedings, the A.O. observed that the assessee had claimed deduction of Rs.11,68,222/- u/s 80P(2)(a)(vi) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called as ‘the Act’). The A.O. on scrutiny, disallowed the claim of deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(vi) of the Act. Aggrieved against this, the assessee appeared before the Ld. CIT(A), who after considering the submissions of the assessee confirmed the order of the A.O. by observing as under:

Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted a written synopsis which is reproduced as under:

[ITA Nos.654&655/Ind/2017] [Kesla Poultry Sahakari Maryadit Pradan Campus, Skhtawa] contended that the authorities below have not considered the submissions in right perspective. Ld. Counsel submitted that if the assessee was not eligible for one clause, it would certainly eligible for another clause of the same section. It is incumbent upon the assessing officer to provide deduction, if it is available.

Facts on record suggest that the submissions of the assessee ought to have been considered by the authorities below. We therefore, set aside the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) and restore the issue to the file of the A.O. to decide after considering all the submissions of the assessee and verifying its claim. The grounds raised in the appeal are allowed for statistical purposes.

1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant’s case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs.15,63,594/- made by the Ld. A.O. u/s 80P(2)(a)(vi) as claimed by the appellant in its return of total income.

2. Without prejudice to above, the Ld. CIT(A) failed to decide and consider the alternate claim of deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(iii) of the Income tax Act as claimed by the appellant society. 8. At the outset, Ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the facts are identical as were in the assessment year 2013-14. He submitted that the facts are similar except the figure. Ld. D.R. also adopted the same argument as were in A.Y. 2013-14.

[ITA Nos.654&655/Ind/2017] [Kesla Poultry Sahakari Maryadit Pradan Campus, Skhtawa] we have restored the issue of allowance of deduction u/s 80P(2) of the Act for decision afresh to the A.O. by observing as under:

“5. We have heard the rival submissions, perused the materials available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. The contention of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee is that the A.O. ought to have allowed deduction. It is stated that assessee is a co-operative society engaged in the collective disposal of labour and also engaged in providing marketing of agricultural produce grown by its members. It is contended that the authorities below have not considered the submissions in right perspective. Ld. Counsel submitted that if the assessee was not eligible for one clause, it would certainly eligible for another clause of the same section. It is incumbent upon the assessing officer to provide deduction if it is available.

6. We have considered these submissions of the assessee. Facts on record suggest that the submissions of the assessee ought to have been considered by the authorities below. We therefore, set aside the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) and restore the issue to the file of the A.O. to decide after considering all the submissions of the assessee and verifying its claim. The grounds raised in the appeal are allowed for statistical purposes.”

Order was pronounced in the open court on 27 .09.2019.