Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai v. M/s. Modern Engineers Construction Coopertive Society Ltd.

Judgment

CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.5497 of 208 From the final Judgment and Order dated 26.2.2007 of the High Court of Judicature at Madras in TC. (A) No. 136 of V. Shekhar, Ranbir Chandra and B.V. Balaram Das for c the Appellant. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

1Leave granted.

2In the instant appeal, challenge is to the judgment of a D Division Bench of the Madras High Court dismissing the appeals filed under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short· 'the Act'). The issue related to the claim of deduction made by the respondent under Section BOP (2)(a)(i) of the Act. The assessing officer negatived the claim on the ground that the E income reflected by the assessee can neither be attributed to actual labour of the members nor can be treated as arising out of collective disposal of its labour. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) following the earlier orders, allowed the appeal. The Revenue filed appeals before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai-'A' Bench (in short the 'Tribunal') which dismissed the appeals.

3Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the assessing officer had rightly observed that the claim of deduction in terms of Section BOP(a)(i) is not allowable. Unfortunately, the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal held otherwise. The High Court failed to notice that the profit earned by the Society in executing the work was retained by the members themselves.

4There is no appearance on behalf of the assessee in spite of service of notice. COMM. OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI v. M/S. MODERN 65 ENGINEERS CONS. COOP SOCIETY LTD. [DR ARIJIT PASAYAT, J]

5The High Court seems to have proceeded on the factual premises as if the dispute related to interest received from members. This confusion appears to have arisen because the High Court mixed up the factual position of some other case which related to credit society engaged in Banking. On that score alone, the High Court's order is ,indefensible.

6Apart from that we find that the decision of this Court in Madas Autorickshaw Drivers v. Commissioner of Income Tax (2001 (10) sec 175), which has prima facie relevance, was not noticed by the High Court. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order of the High Court and remit the matter to it for a fresh consideration in the light of. the aforesaid decision, keeping in view the correct factual position. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. D.G.

7The appeal is disposed of accordingly. Appeal disposed of. ·. I