Judgment :- This appeal is by the revenue challenging the legality and correctness of the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench in ITA No. 208/Bang/2002 dated 30.06.2004. 2. The appeal is admitted on the following substantial question of law: “Whether the tribunal was correct in holding that the prima-facie adjustment made by the Assessing Officer under Sec. 143(1) (a) read with Sec. 154 of the Act by holding that lorry hire charges based on the return of income and accounts produced along with the returns cannot be treated as income exempt from tax as falling under Sec. 80 petitioner (2) (a) (iv) of the Act i.e., income from agriculture implements, seeds, livestock or other articles cannot be done as it involves a debatable issue?”. 3. The respondent is a co-operative institution registered to promote agricultural activities to give benefit to the farmers who are its members. The assessee filed return of income for the assessment year 1998-99, the same was processed under Sec. 143 (1) (a). The Assessing Officer having noticed that the assessee was also getting income from hiring its lorry disallowed exemption on the ground that it does not fall under Sec. 80(p) a(iv) of the Income Tax Act. Being aggrieved by the same, the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) which appeal came to be dismissed. Challenging the concurrent findings of the order of the Assessing Officer and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) assessee filed an appeal the tribunal. The tribunal allowed the appeal on the ground that the assessee is also engaged in the marketing of agricultural produce for the benefit of its members. This order is called in question in this appeal. 4. We have heard the counsel for the parties. 5. The claim of the assessee is denied by the Assessing Officer on the ground that Sec. 80p(2) a(iv) does not empower him to consider hire charges received by the assessee. SEC. 80 Preads as hereunder: “80P. Deduction in respect of income of co-operative societies: (1). Where, in the case of an assessee being a co-operative society, the gross total income includes any income referred to in sub-section (2), in computing the total income of the assessee. (2). The sums referred to in sub-section (1) shall be the following, namely:- (a). in the case of a co-operative society engaged in – (i). Where, in the case of an assessee being a co-operative society, the gross total income includes any income referred to in sub-section (2), in computing the total income of the assessee. (2). The sums referred to in sub-section (1) shall be the following, namely:- (a). in the case of a co-operative society engaged in – (i). carrying on the business of banking or providing credit facilities to its members, or (ii). a cottage industry, or (iii). the marketing of the agricultural produce grown by its members, or] (iv). the purchase of agricultural implements, seeds, livestock or other articles intended for agriculture for the purpose of supplying them to its members, or (v). the processing, without the aid of power, of the agricultural produce of its members, [or] (vi). the collective disposal of the labour of its members, or (vii). fishing or allied activities, that is to say, the catching, curing, processing, preserving, storing or marketing of fish or the purchase of materials and equipment in connection therewith for the purpose of supplying them to its members, ] the whole of the amount of profits and gains of business attributable to any one or more of such activities: [provided that in the case of a co-operative society falling under sub-clause (vi) or subclause (vii), the rules and bye-laws of the society restrict the voting rights to the following classes of its members, namely: (1).the individuals who contribute their labour or, as the case may be, carry on the fishing or allied activities: (2).the co-operative credit societies which provide financial assistance to the society; (3).the state Government; ]” It is not in dispute that the assessee is engaged in marketing of agricultural produce and what is ‘marketing’ has been considered by the Division Bench of this court in the case of assessee only, reported in 1978 ITR-115 Page-709 ADDl. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, KARNATAKA Vs. RYOTS AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE COOPERATIVE MARKETING SOCIETY LTD. Venkataramaiah J. as he then was while considering the expression ‘Marketing’ has held as hereunder: “The expression ‘marketing’ appearing in cl. (c) of s. 81 (I) (now s. 80P) of the IT Act, 1961, is of wide import and generally means `the performance of all business activities involved in the flow of goods and services from the point of initial agricultural production until they are in the hands of the ultimate consumer’. (c) of s. 81 (I) (now s. 80P) of the IT Act, 1961, is of wide import and generally means `the performance of all business activities involved in the flow of goods and services from the point of initial agricultural production until they are in the hands of the ultimate consumer’. In order to make agricultural produce fit for marketing, it may have to be transported or processed, but all the activities involved are understood as amounting to a single activity, namely, marketing, and not independent activities such as transporting, processing, selling, etc. The marketing functions may involve exchange functions such as buying and selling, physical functions such as storage, transportation, processing and other commercial functions such as standardization, financing, market, intelligence. Etc.” From looking into this expression and the Judgment of this court in the case of assessee, even if the Assessing Officer was of the opinion that the case of the assessee does not fall under Sec. 80P (2) (a) (iv) since it falls under Sec. 80P (2) (a) (iii). the assessee is entitled for the benefit. Therefore, we have to answer the substantial question of law framed in this appeal against the revenue. 6. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.