High Court Of Madras
CIT vs. RA 363 Virudhunagar Cooperative Marketing Society Ltd.
Section 80P(2)(a)(iii)
Asst. Year 1987-88
R. Jayasimha Babu & A.K. Rajan, JJ.
Tax Case No. 87 of 1997
12th November, 2001
Counsel Appeared
Mrs. Chitra Venkataraman, for the Revenue : P.P.S. Janardhanaraja, for the Assessee
JUDGMENT
R. JAYASIMHA BABU, J. :
The assessee is a co-operative society. The assessment year is 1987-88.
2. The question referred is “whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee-marketing society which is engaged in the business of purchase and sale of lint is entitled to the benefit of s. 80P(2)(a)(iii) of the IT Act ?”
3. After this reference came to be made, that provision, s. 80P(2)(a)(iii), was amended retrospectively, w.e.f. 1st April, 1968, by the IT (Second Amendment) Act, 1998. Prior to the amendment, that cl. (iii) of s. 80P(2)(a) read thus : “the marketing of the agricultural produce of its members” After the amendment, that sub-cl. (iii) reads thus
: “the marketing of agricultural produce grown by its members.”
4. Thus, while prior to the amendment, there was no requirement that the agricultural produce marketed by the co- operative society should have been grown by its members, such a requirement was spelt out in the statute retrospectively from 1st April, 1968.
5. In this case, it is admitted that the agricultural produce marketed by the society is not grown by its members, the item marketed being lint, was obtained in the process of manufacture and was not grown by the members of the society.
6. Having regard to the fact that the amendment has been given retrospective effect from 1st April, 1968, that law, as amended, would apply to the asst. yr. 1987-88 as well.
7. The question referred to us must, therefore, be and is answered against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue.
[Citation : 255 ITR 558]