2022 (11) TMI 1132 - AT - Income Tax

Deduction u/s 80P - profit from the business as regards non-members was not admissible u/s 80P(2)(b) - statement recorded u/s 131 from a Mantri of the assessee co-operative society, wherein as clearly admitted the milk was procured from its members as well as non-members - statement is not recorded from any third party - assessee is also not produced any details about the purchase of milk from non-members - HELD THAT - Clause b of Section 80P(2) talks about a Co-operative Society to be a primary society engaged in supplying of milk and other goods raised or grown by its members to, a federal co-operative society engaged in the same business or a Government or local authority or a Government company. Thus, the provision clearly prescribes about the procurement of the goods from the Members of the society and not from the non- Members. As submitted by the D.R. the statement recorded from Shri Karsanbhai S. Bharwad who is the Mantri of the assessee cooperative society and not a third person. Therefore, the case laws relied by the assessee is clearly distinguishable and not applicable to the present facts of the case. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are devoid of any merits and against the provisions of Section 80P(2)(b). Therefore, the finding of the lower authorities does not require any interference and appeal filed by the assessee is hereby dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Interpretation of Section 80P(2)(b) - Eligibility for deduction based on procurement from members vs. non-members.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Interpretation of Section 80P(2)(b)
The case involved an appeal by the assessee against an order passed under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 related to the A.Y. 2015-16. The primary issue was whether the assessee, a Co-operative Society engaged in milk collection, was eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(b) for profits from supplying goods raised by its members. The Assessing Officer disallowed exemption under Section 80P(2)(b) due to purchases from non-members. The CIT(A) upheld the disallowance, emphasizing that the condition for deduction required goods to be raised by members only. The assessee contended that the disallowance was unjust as the milk procured from non-members was wrongly included. The Tribunal noted that Section 80P(2)(b) mandates procurement from members, not non-members. The statement from the Mantri of the cooperative society confirmed procurement from both members and non-members. The Tribunal held that the assessee's arguments lacked merit and were contrary to the provisions of Section 80P(2)(b). Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, affirming the lower authorities' decision.

This case underscores the importance of complying with statutory provisions for claiming deductions under the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal's interpretation of Section 80P(2)(b) highlights the significance of procuring goods exclusively from members to qualify for the deduction. The reliance on the statement of the cooperative society's Mantri to establish procurement practices played a pivotal role in determining the eligibility for the deduction. The judgment emphasizes the need for strict adherence to statutory requirements to avoid disallowances and underscores the significance of documentary evidence in tax assessments.