Punjab-Haryana High Court
Cit vs Gurdaspur Hardochhanni Co-Op. L/C ... on 22 February, 2007
Equivalent citations: [2008]303ITR145(P&H)
Author: Rajesh Bindal
Bench: Rajesh Bindal
ORDER M.M. Kumar, J.
1. This order shall dispose of LT.R Nos. 401 & 402 of 1995, 133 of 1996, and 52 of 1997 as common question of law and facts have been raised. These references have been made under Section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act').
2. Facts have been taken from ITR Nos. 401 and 402 of 1995.
3. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar Bench, Amritsar (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'), at the instance of revenue, has referred the following question of law for adjudication of this Court arising out of order passed by it in ITA No. 779(ASR)/1994 for the assessment year 1990-91:
Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in confirming the order of the learned first Appellate Authority granting exemption to the assessee-society under Section 80P(2)(a)(vi) of the Income Tax Act, 1961?
4. It is appropriate to mention that the Tribunal has accepted the plea of the assessee that the whole of its income was qualified for exemption under Section 80P(2)(a)(vi) of the Act and the purpose of the society was collective disposal of labour for discharge of financial and social interest of the labourers of the area who have been the member of the society.
Therefore, it has been found that all the conditions laid down under Section 80P(2)(a)(vi) of the Act were fulfilled and the income of the societywas f ully exempted from tax. It is also worth mentioning that the accountsof the assessee-society have been audited and the voting right wasrestricted to the members alone. The report of the auditors have also beenplaced on record. The only contention raised by the counsel for the revenue is that as the condition laid down, for claiming deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(vi) of the Act, were not complied with in the present case, the assessee was not entitled to the deduction.
5. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, we are of the considered view that once it had been found as a f act, on the strength of the report of auditors on record, that the assessee-society is a registered society and its purpose is of collective disposal of labour for discharge of financial and social interest of the labourers of that particular area who are its members, the Tribunal was not wrong in allowing the deduction as contemplated under Section 80P(2)(2)(vi) of the Act to the assessee. No question has been claimed on perversity of findings of f act.
6. Accordingly, we answer the question against the revenue and in favour of the assessee.