M/S ALWAR KRAY VIKRAY SAHAKARI SAMITI LTD.,ALWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2-3, ALWAR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 787/JPR/2017Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 August 2018AY 2012-137 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that while turnover is generally a proper basis for allocating common expenditure, it may give distorted results when the number of service points for eligible and non-eligible businesses differ significantly. Therefore, the issue was set aside to the AO for re-adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a cooperative society, claimed deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(iv) for its wholesale trading of fertilizers, seeds, and pesticides. The Assessing Officer (AO) apportioned common expenses on a turnover basis, resulting in a net loss for this segment and reducing the deduction to Nil. The assessee argued against this apportionment method.

What were the issues?

Whether common expenses should be allocated on a turnover basis or on the basis of the number of service points for determining deduction under Section 80P. Applicability of Section 14A to income eligible for deduction under Section 80P.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 80P,Section 14A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCHES, JAIPUR

Before: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 787 & 985/JP/2017

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (CA) jktLo dh vksj ls@

PER VIJAY PAL RAO, JM :

These two appeals by the assessee are directed against two separate orders

of the ld. CIT (A) for the assessment years 2012-13 and 13-14 dated 19.09.2017

and 16.10.2017 respectively. For the assessment year 2012-13 the assessee has

raised the following grounds :-

“ 1. The ld. CIT (A) has erred on facts and in law in upholding the order of AO in reducing the claim of deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(iv) at Rs. Nil as against Rs. 6,07,375/- claimed by the assessee.

2.

The assessee craves right to add, alter or amend any of the grounds of the appeal.

3.

The appropriate cost be awarded to the assessee.

2 ITA Nos. 787 & 985/JP/2017 Alwar Kray Vikray Sahakari Samiti Ltd., Alwar.

2.

The only issue arises in this appeal of the assessee is regarding reduction of

claim of deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(iv) at Nil as against the claim of Rs.

6,07,375/-.

3.

We have heard the ld. A/R as well as the ld. D/R and considered the relevant

material on record. The assessee is a cooperative society constituted under

Rajasthan Co-operative Act. The assessee is in the business of wholesale trading of

fertilizers, seeds, pesticides, agricultural equipments etc. as well as trading of

consumable goods under PDS (Ration) as per the policy of Government of India.

The income from the wholesale trading of fertilizers, seeds, pesticides, agricultural

equipments is eligible for deduction under section 80P of the IT Act whereas the

income from trading of consumable goods under PDS is not eligible for deduction

under section 80P(2) of the IT Act. In the return of income, the assessee declared

income of Rs. 2,64,640/- after claiming the deduction under section 80P of Rs.

9,72,673/- as under :-

80P(2)(a)(iv)(purchase of agricultural implements, seeds etc) Rs. 6,07,375/- (G.P Rs.11,46,660 – Expenses Rs. 5,39,205) 80P(2)(c)(ii) (General) Rs. 50,000/- 80P(2)(d)(Interest Rs.41,358/- & Dividend Rs.2,73,940) Rs. 3,15,298/- Rs.9,72,673/- ------------------

The AO in the scrutiny assessment has observed that out of total turnover of Rs.

25.21 crores, the turnover of fertilizers, seeds and pesticides is Rs. 8.59 crores and

gross profit is Rs. 11,46,661/-. The assessee has claimed expenses of Rs.

5,39,205/- against the income from fertilizers, seeds and pesticides out of total

expenditure of Rs. 62,51,180/-. Hence the AO was of the view that the claim of

expenditure of Rs. 5,39,205/- against the income eligible for deduction under section

3 ITA Nos. 787 & 985/JP/2017 Alwar Kray Vikray Sahakari Samiti Ltd., Alwar.

80P is not acceptable as it is without any basis. Accordingly, the AO apportioned the

total expenditure on turnover basis and worked out the expenses incurred on

fertilizers, seeds and pesticides business at Rs. 21,31,877/- resulting net loss of Rs.

9,85,216/- in the segment of fertilizers, seeds and pesticides. Thus due to the

allocation of expenses on turnover basis, the net outcome of the eligible business

activity under section 80P of the Act is loss and the deduction of Rs. 6,07,375/- was

reduced to Nil. The ld. A/R of the assessee has submitted that the assessee is

serving 429 PDS shops whereas the fertilizers, seeds and pesticides are supplied

only to 70 village service cooperative societies. Thus when the number of PDS

shops and the village service cooperative societies are not equal, then the

apportionment of the expenditure on turnover basis is not justified. Hence, the ld.

A/R has submitted that the expenditure should have been allocated at the best on

the basis of number of PDS shops and number of village service cooperative

societies to whom the assessee catered the needs.

3.1. On the other hand, the ld. D/R submitted that the assessee is not maintaining

separate books of account to show the expenditure incurred for each of the

segments of business activities, therefore, the AO had no option but to apportion the

expenditure on turnover basis. The ld. D/R relied upon the orders of the authorities

below.

4.

Having considered the relevant facts as well as the rival submissions of the

parties, we note that in an ordinary case turnover is a proper basis for allocation of

common expenditure if the activities in various segments are similar in nature.

Therefore, until and unless there is an exception, the turnover is an acceptable basis

of allocation of common expenditure. We further note that the major expenditure

4 ITA Nos. 787 & 985/JP/2017 Alwar Kray Vikray Sahakari Samiti Ltd., Alwar.

which is common and direct expenditure of Head Office of the assessee is on

account of salary and wages. Therefore, when the assessee is catering 70 village

service co-operative societies in the segments of fertilizers, seeds, pesticides,

agricultural equipments as against 429 service points of PDS shops, then allocating

the expenditure on turnover basis may give a distorted result and not the correct

out-come of the activities. Therefore, to the extent of the expenditure which is

incurred in serving the various service points, the same can be allocated on the basis

of number of service points and the remaining expenditure which are invariable in

relation to the number of service points like audit fee etc. and Head Office expenses,

the same can be allocated on the basis of the turnover of the different segments of

the business activities of the assessee. Thus when the assessee is having the

income from different segments comprising the income eligible for deduction under

section 80P as well as the income which is not eligible for deduction under section

80P, then the allocation of the common expenditure should be made after

considering the peculiar facts of the case of the assessee. Accordingly, we set aside

the issue to the record of the AO for re-adjudication of the same by segregating the

common expenditure which can be related to the activities of serving the PDS shops

as well as the service cooperative societies. The same has to be allocated on the

ratio of respective number and the rest of the expenditure has to be allocated on

turnover basis.

5.

For the assessment year 2013-14, the assessee has raised the following

grounds :-

5 ITA Nos. 787 & 985/JP/2017 Alwar Kray Vikray Sahakari Samiti Ltd., Alwar.

“ 1. The ld. CIT (A) has erred on facts and in law in confirming the action of AO in not allowing the claim of deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(iv) at Rs. 3,83,103/-.

2.

The ld. CIT (A) has erred on factgs and in law in confirming the disallowance of Rs. 29,609/- u/s 14A of the IT Act, 1961 read with Rule 8D.

3.

The assessee craves right to add, alter or amend any of the grounds of the appeal.

4.

The appropriate cost be awarded to the assessee.

6.

Ground No. 1 is common to the ground raised in assessment year 2012-13.

Accordingly, in view of our finding on this issue for the assessment year 2012-13,

this ground stands set aside to the record of the AO on same terms.

7.

Ground No. 2 is regarding disallowance made under section 14A read with

Rule 8D of the IT Act.

8.

We have heard the ld. A/R as well as the ld. D/R and considered the relevant

material on record. At the outset, we note that the AO invoked section 14A in

respect of the dividend received by the assessee from the investments made in the

various co-operative societies. Thus it is clear from the record that the said income is

otherwise eligible for deduction under section 80P and not falling in the category of

exempt income under section 10(34) of the Act. Hence this issue is connected with

the issue of allocation of common expenditure between the eligible income under

section 80P(2) as well as non-eligible income. Since the dividend is in the category

of eligible income under section 80P(2), therefore, the provisions of section 14A are

not applicable but this has to be considered for the purpose of allocating the

common expenditure. Hence we set aside this issue to the record of the AO for

6 ITA Nos. 787 & 985/JP/2017 Alwar Kray Vikray Sahakari Samiti Ltd., Alwar.

considering this amount along with the other income of the assessee eligible for

deduction under section 80P(2) of the Act.

5.

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical

purposes.

Order is pronounced in the open court on 30/08/2018.

Sd/- Sd/- (foØe flag ;kno) (fot; iky jkWo ½ (VIKRAM SINGH YADAV ) (VIJAY PAL RAO) U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member ys[kk lnL;@Accountant Member

Jaipur Dated:- 30/08/2018. Das/

आदेश की प्रतिलिपि अग्रेषित@ब्वचल वf जीम वतकमत वितूंतकमक जवरू

1.

The Appellant- M/s. Alwar Kray Vikray Sahakari Samiti Ltd., Alwar. 2. The Respondent – The ACIT, Circle-2/The ITO Ward 2(3), Alwar. 3. The CIT(A). 4. The CIT, 5. The DR, ITAT, Jaipur 6. Guard File (ITA No. 787 & 985/JP/2017) vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order,

सहायक पंजीकार@ Aेेपेजंदज. त्महपेजतंत

7 ITA Nos. 787 & 985/JP/2017 Alwar Kray Vikray Sahakari Samiti Ltd., Alwar.

More judgments on Section 80P

All 5,069 judgments and leading authorities on Section 80P →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →