1

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR

BEFORE SHRI HARI OM MARATHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND

SHRI N.K. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

MA No.10/JU/2009 (Arising out of ITA Nos. 147 & 148/JDPR/2006)

Assessment Years : 1998-1999 & 1999-2000

Income Tax Officer, vs. M/s. Hanumangarh Kray Ward-1, Hanumangarh. Vikraya Sahakari Samiti Ltd.,

Hanumangarh.

(Applicant) (Respondent)

Applicant by : Shri Suresh Ojha.

Department by : Shri N.A. Joshi - D.R.

Date of hearing : 08-01-2014

Date of pronouncement : 17-02-2014

O R D E R

PER HARI OM MARATHA, J.M.

This Miscellaneous Application has been filed by the revenue in relation to

the tribunal’s order dated 23/03/2007 passed in ITA Nos. 147 & 148/JU/2006

pertaining to assessment years 1998-99 & 1999-2000. Through this Misc.

Application, the applicant/revenue has sought review of the tribunal’s order under

the provisions of section 254(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as

‘the Act’ in short). Under this provision only obvious patent and apparent

2

mistake(s), in the tribunal’s order, if any, can be rectified. The tribunal is not

vested with the power to reconsider or review its order. For ready reference, we

incorporate the entire petition of the revenue which reads as under:-

“In the above case the Honble’s ITAT Jodhpur Bench Jodhpur has delivered his

decision vide its order in appeal NO. 148/JDR/2006 on 23-03-2007 for the A.Y.

1998-99 & 1999 -2000 respectively.

In this connection I have to submit that during the course of appellate

proceeding in the case of Hanumangarh Kraya Vikray Sahakari Simiti Ltd.

Hanumangarh for the A.Y 2000-200r the ld. CIT (appeal) in his order observed that

the appellant in above case has misrepresented the facts before Honble's ITAT

Jodhpur regarding membership of the society. As per arguments placed before the

ITAT, all the farmers and business men falling under the jurisdiction of the society

have been treated as if so-facto members of the society which is contrary to the

provision of constitution and bylaws of the society.

On going through the constitution and bylaws of the society it is found that

for becoming member of the society every applicant has to file application with

purchase of share money and entrance fee and membership will be allotted with

in 30 days of the application. The individual agriculturists, primary societies, the

business men having commercials relation with the society etc. can become

members of the society by filling application with society, who inturn with allot

membership to the appellant. A member of the society in section 80P ordinarily

refer to a person who himself is a member of society. Where another society is

members of the assessee society, all members of the former do not ipso-facto

become members of the assessee society. (CIT v/s U.P.CO-operative Cane Union

Federation Ltd. 122 ITR 913(All). Affirming this decision the Supreme Court has, in

U.P. Co-operative cane Unions Federation Ltd. v/s CIT (1997) ll SCC 287,291, held

that in section 80P(a)(i), when Parliament has used the expression members it has

used it in the normal sense of a member of a co-operative society. The intention

was to extend the exemption to co-operative societies directly extending credit

facilities to its members. In the case of the appellant, the authorized

representative has argued that all farmers, businessmen, small primary gramin

cooperative society, Rajasthan Kraya Vikraya Sahakari Samiti Ltd. including all

society members and the state government automatically becomes members of

the appellant society which is factually and legally & bylaws of the appellant

society and as per legal position as decided by the Supreme Court (Supra).

3

In view of the factual and legal position, it is clear that the appellant has

misrepresented the facts before the Honorable ITAT regarding membership of the

society that all agriculturist under his jurisdictions and all members of the primary

co-operative societies for members of the society. The appellant have also

misrepresented before the Honorable ITAT regarding actives as per sub section

(2)(a)(iii) and (2)(a)(iv) of section 80P.

Inview of the above facts, it is humbly requested that the miscellaneous

petition be admitted and order earlier passed in appeal No. 147/JDR/2006 &

148/JDR/2006 on 23/03/2007 for the A.Y. 1998-99 & 1999-2000 be re-examined. “

2 From the very perusal of averments of this petition, macroscopically, it is

revealed that the Income Tax Officer has prayed for the ‘re-examination’ of the

tribunal’s order and that too, based on some observations made by the Ld.

CIT(A) regarding tribunal order pertaining to A.Y. 2000-01. Nothing has been

mentioned regarding the tribunal-order under reference. No error, worth the

same has been pointed in the T.O. The reasons mentioned to seek rectification

as above, do not fall within the purview of section 254(2) of the Act. Therefore,

this petition is not maintainable being devoid of any merit. Accordingly, the same

stands dismissed.

3. In the result, the Misc. Application filed by the revenue is dismissed.

(Order Pronounced in the Open Court on this 17-02-2014.)

Sd/- sd/-

(N.K. SAINI) (HARI OM MARATHA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 17th February, 2014

4

vr/-

Copy to:-

1.The Appellant

2. The Respondent 3. The ld. CIT

4. The ld. CIT(A) 5. The DR

6. The Guard File Assistant Registrar

ITAT, Jodhpur