Commissioner of Income Tax v. Co-Operative Cane Development Union
1992-09-22
OM PARKASH, R.K.GULATI
body1992
DigiLaw.ai
JUDGMENT Om Parkash, J. - At the instance of the revenue, the Tribunal referred the following question u/s 256(1) of the income tax Act 1961 ('the Act') briefly the Act, for the opinion of this Court. Whether, the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the income from interest on securities amounting to Rs. 13,477 was exempt from tax under clause (c) of sub-section (2) of section 80 of the income tax Act, 1961? Upon perusal of the order of the Tribunal, it appears that the assessee a co-operative society, derived income from various sources for the assessment year 1974-75 which is under consideration including the income of Rs. 13,477 from interest on securities in respect of which exemption was claimed by the assessee u/s 80P(2)(c) which was refused by the ITO. On appeal, the AAC accepted the claim of the assessee. On further appeal by the revenue to the Tribunal, the order of the AAC was affirmed and the contention of the revenue was rejected. 2. The contention of the revenue is that exemption in respect of the interest income of Rs. 13,477 derived from securities is available u/s 80P(2)(c)(ii) inasmuch as the said income did arise to the assessee from the activities envisaged by clause (c) of sub-section (2) of section 80P. The ITO rejected the claim of the assessee saying that interest on Government security is taxable as the income of the co-operative society is above Rs. 2,500. The AAC accepted the contention of the assessee that interest income from securities being less than Rs. 20,000 is exempt u/s 80P(2)(c). Before the Tribunal the contention of the revenue was that the assessee was not entitled to exemption on the income from interest on securities in view of the clear provisions of clause (f) of sub section (2) of section 80P which lays down that the income from interest on securities will be exempt only when the gross total income of the assessee does not exceed Rs. 20,000. The learned standing counsel reiterated before us that income by way of interest on securities will be exempt only u/s 80P(2)(c)(f) and not under clause (c) of sub section (2) of section 80P. 3.
20,000. The learned standing counsel reiterated before us that income by way of interest on securities will be exempt only u/s 80P(2)(c)(f) and not under clause (c) of sub section (2) of section 80P. 3. The question, whether or not the assessee is entitled to exemption in respect of income by way of interest on securities, came up for consideration in the case of the assessee itself before this Court relating to the next preceding assessment year 1973-74 and then this Court held in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Co-operative Cane Development Union Ltd., (1979) 13 CTR 137 , that so long as profits or gains are attributable to the activity of the assessee, they are exempt under clause (c) of sub-section (2) of section 80P. This Court then observed that the activity of the assessee was supplying sugarcane and that the assessee was bound to invest 25 per cent of its profits in the Government securities to carry on its activity of supplying sugarcane. On these facts, this Court held that the investment of the statutory percentage of its profits in the Government securities was a condition precedent for carrying on the business and, therefore, the profits or gains from such investments were connected with or were incidental to the carrying on of the actual business of the assessee. This Court, therefore, then concluded that the Tribunal rightly held that the interest income received on Government securities was attributable to the activity carried on by the assessee within the meaning of clause (c) of sub-section (2) of section 80P and, therefore, the assessee was entitled to exemption in respect of interest income which did not exceed Rs. 20,000. Following this authority relating to the case of the assessee itself with which we completely agree, we reject the submission made on behalf of the revenue and uphold the view taken by the Tribunal. We, therefore, decide the aforementioned question in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the revenue.