ORDER 

PER SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, J.M.

All these three appeals have been preferred by the revenue against the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- 19, New Delhi {CIT (A)} vide orders dated 02.05.2016 for assessment years 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2012-13 respectively and involve identical issues; therefore these were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience.

2.0 Brief facts of the case are that the assessee claims to be an Agricultural Produce Market Committee regulating the marketing of agricultural produce. It is the assessee’s claim that it was eligible for exemption u/s 10(26AAB) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). For assessment year 2009-10, the return of income was filed declaring a loss of Rs. 1,84,928/- after claiming deduction of Rs. 92,76,540/- u/s 10(26AAB) of the Act. In assessment year 2010-11, the return of income was filed declaring loss of Rs.1,69,427/- after claiming deduction of Rs. 1,06,26,739/- u/s 10(26AAB) of the Act. In assessment year 2012-13, the return was filed declaring a loss of Rs. 2,23,586/- after claiming deduction of Rs. 6,04,06,259/- u/s 10(26AAB) of the Income Tax Act.

2.1 The assessee was required to explain the veracity of its claim u/s 10(26AAB) of the Act by the Assessing Officer in all the three years and the assessee submitted that the assessee is a Marketing Committee established under the Delhi Agricultural Produce Market (Regulation) Act, 1976 and entrusted with the duty of supervising, controlling and providing facilities to the traders operating in the Committee premises. It was further submitted that the assessee regulates the marketing of fish, poultry and eggs. It was explained that the raw material is brought in by the wholesalers and after refining the same i.e. after checking, cleaning, sorting/segregating, chopping, preserving, and packing, the same is supplied to various buyers by the traders who are operating in the Committee area. It was submitted by the assessee that the committee has been formed for better regulation of notified agricultural produce in the notified market for the benefit of the farmers, growers, commission agents and traders and to see that the farmers get the best price of their notified produce in the market. It was submitted that since these activities fall within the purview of exemption as specified in section 10(26AAB) of the Act, the assessee was eligible for the said exemption. Apart from this, the assessee also submitted various other documents in support of its claim.

2.2 However, the Assessing Officer was not convinced with the assessee’s claim and held that marketing of fish, poultry and eggs should not be termed as marketing of agricultural products and that it was rather a trading venture of certain non- agricultural goods. The Assessing Officer proceeded to disallow the assessee’s claim u/s 10(26AAB) in all the three years under consideration.

2.3 Aggrieved, the assessee approached the Ld. CIT (A) in all the three years and the Ld. CIT (A) held in favour of the assessee by holding that the assessee was entitled to exemption u/s 10(26AAB) of the Act.

2.4 Aggrieved by the order/s of the Ld. CIT (A), the department is now in appeal before the ITAT and has challenged the findings of the Ld. CIT (A) in the three years under consideration.

3.0 The Ld. Sr. Departmental Representative (DR) submitted that a bare reading of section 10(26AAB) of the Act would suggest that the exemption is granted with respect to any income of an agricultural produce, marketing committee or board constituted under any law for the time being in force for the purpose of regulating the marketing of agricultural produce whereas the assessee is a fish, poultry and egg marketing committee and, therefore, the exemption was not allowable to the assessee. It was further submitted that as per section 10(26AAB) of the Act, any income derived from agriculture on land situated in India and used for