BEED TALUKA DHUD VA vs. AYIK SAHAKARISANGH LTD,,BEEDVS.INCOME TAX OFFICER,, BEED

आयकर अऩीऱीय अधधकरण “ए” न्यायऩीठ ऩुणे में । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, PUNE श्री अननऱ चतुर्वेदी, ऱेखा सदस्य, एर्वं श्री वर्वकास अर्वस्थी, न्यानयक सदस्य के समक्ष । BEFORE SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM AND SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JM

आयकर अऩीऱ सं. / ITA No.293/PUN/2017 ननधाारण र्वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2012-13

Beed Taluka Dhud Vavsayik Sahakarisangh Ltd., Manzari Phata, At Post Pali, Distt.-Beed - 431122 PAN : AAATB8131F .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बनाम / V/s.

The Income Tax Officer, Ward – 1, Beed ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent

Assessee by : N O N E (Written request to withdraw appeal received through post) Revenue by : Shri N. Ashok Babu

सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing : 01-07-2019 घोषणा की तारीख / Date of Pronouncement : 01-07-2019 आदेश / ORDER PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JM :

This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Aurangabad dated 17-08-2016 for the assessment year 2012-13.

2 ITA No.293/PUN/2017, A.Y. 2012-13

“Sub : Request for withdrawal of appeals reg. Ref : i] Appeal filed – against order of CIT(A)-2 Aurangabad’s No. ABD/CIT(A)-2/28/2015-2016 dt. 17-08-2016 for A.Y. 2012-13; ii] PAN. AAATB8131F iii] Notice of Appeal No. 293/PUN/2017 dt. 17-08-2016- Hearing fixed on 30-04-2019. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Please refer to the above. 2] In context to the abve, it is submitted that :- (i) Vide Appellate order of CIT(A)-2, A’bad, under reference, the disallowance of claim made u/s. 80P(2)(b) was confirmed, as the appellant being a federation of primary milk procuring societies. (ii) Further, Recently, assessee came to know that such deduction u/s. 80P(2)(b) is not allowable to the federation, as observed by the Hon. Supreme court in the case of “The Citizen Co-op Society Ltd. vs. ACIT” reported in (2017) 397 ITR 0001 (SC), dated 08/08/2017, in Para 21 giving reference of decision of CIT vs. Punjab State Co-op Bank Ltd., (2008) 300 ITR 24 (Pun & Har – HC) 21. In the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Punjab State Co-operative Bank Ltd., (2008) 300 ITR 24 (Punjab & Haryana H.C.), while dealing with an identical issue, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana held as follows: “8. The provisions of section 80P were introduced with a view to encouraging and promoting the growth of the co-operative sector in the economic life of the country and in pursuance of the declared policy of the Government. The different heads of exemption enumerated in the section are separate and distinct heads of exemption and are to be treated as such. Whenever a question arises as to whether any particular category of an income of a co-operative society is exempt from tax, then it has to be seen whether such income fell within any of the several heads of exemption. If it fell within any one head of exemption,.... It means that a co-operative society engaged in carrying on the business of banking and a co- operative society providing credit facilities to its members will be entitled for exemption under this sub-clause. The carrying on the business of banking by a cooperative society or providing credit facilities to its members are two different types of activities which are covered under this sub-clause. xx xx xx 13. So, in our view, if the income of a society is falling within any one head of exemption, it has to be exempted from tax notwithstanding that the condition of other heads of exemption are not satisfied. A reading of the provisions of section 80P of the Act would indicate the manner in which the exemption under the said provisions is sought to be extended. Whenever the Legislature wanted to restrict the exemption to a primary co-operative society, it was so made clear as is evident from clause (f) with reference to a milk co- operative society that a primary society engaged in supplying milk is entitled to such exemption while denying the same to a federal milk co-operative society.” 3] In view of the above narrated facts and considering observation of Apex court cited supra, appellant may please be permitted to withdraw the appeal, under reference, and oblige.