Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH, CHENNAI
Before: SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN & SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY
आदेश /O R D E R
PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
This appeal of the Revenue is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Salem, dated 31.03.2015 and pertains to assessment year 2010-11.
The only issue arises for consideration is with regard to deduction claimed by the assessee under Section 80P(2)(a)(vi) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act').
Dr. B. Nischal, the Ld. Departmental Representative, submitted that the assessee is a co-operative society and its members are owners of the printing press. The assessee is collecting orders for printing and distributing the work to various members of the society who are owners of printing press.
According to the Ld. D.R., the assessee is not a labour co-operative society. The assessee is collecting orders from various sources and distributing the work of printing to the members. Referring to Section 80P(2)(a)(vi) of the Act, the Ld. D.R. submitted that deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(vi) of the Act is only for collective disposal of the labour of its members and not for doing or distributing any work among the members. In this case, according to the Ld. D.R., the assessee is not disposing any labour of the members of the assessee-society. In fact, no labourer is members of the assessee-society. Therefore, the assessee-society is not eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(vi) of the Act.
On the contrary, Shri S. Sridhar, the Ld.counsel for the assessee, submitted that on identical set of facts, this Tribunal in the assessee's own case for the assessment years 1996-97, 1987- 88 to 1992-93 in 3039/Mds/1993 and 2320 to 2324/Mds/1997 by order dated 11.06.2003, allowed the claim of the assessee. Revenue, in fact, carried the matter before the High Court and the High Court confirmed the order of the Tribunal on identical set of facts. Referring to the order of the CIT(Appeals), the Ld.counsel submitted that the CIT(Appeals) has followed the order of this Tribunal which was confirmed by the High Court, therefore, no interference is called for.
We have considered the rival submissions on either side and perused the relevant material available on record. Admittedly, the assessee claimed deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(vi) of the Act in respect of its income. The assessee is not a society of labourers.
The assessee is distributing work among the members who are owners of the printing press. Therefore, it is obvious that what was disposed of / distributed by the assessee is the work of printing and not the labour. On identical set of facts, the Madras High Court in the assessee's own case in Tax Case (Appeal) Nos.147 to 153 and 221 and 222 of 2003 by an order dated 26.09.2006 found that the assessee is eligible for exemption under Section 80P(2)(a)(vi) of the Act. Therefore, the Tribunal do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the lower authority. Accordingly, the order of the CIT(Appeals) is confirmed.
In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.
Order pronounced on 18th December, 2015 at Chennai.