Fees obtained by trader of fish, poultry & eggs constitute ‘agricultural produce’, hence eligible for Sec 10(26AAB) exemption

The Delhi High Court recently held that income derived by Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee for regulating the market of fish, poultry and eggs would be eligible for exemption under Section 10(26AAB) of Income Tax Act, 1961.

Highlighting that the term ‘agricultural produce’ is not defined in the Income Tax Act and term ‘agricultural produce’ provided under Section 2 of Delhi Agricultural Procure Marketing Regulation Act, 1988 is wide enough so to include large ambit of commodities including fish and poultry to grant exemption under Section 10(26AAB), the Division Bench comprising of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju referring to Section 10(26AAB), observes that the said section entails (i) ‘any income’ of the APMC or Board, (ii) APMC or Board should be one, which is constituted by or under any law and (iii) income earned by APMC or Board should have nexus with the purpose of regulating the marketing of ‘agricultural produce’.

Revenue was represented by Advocate Zoheb Hossain, whereas Assessee was represented by none.

Briefly, the Assessee, an APMC constituted under Delhi Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1988 filed return of income declaring loss of Rs.2.23 Lac and claimed income of Rs.6.04 Cr derived from regulating the market of fish, poultry and eggs as exempt under Section 10(26AAB). During assessment, the AO denied the exempt income of Rs.6.04 Cr on the premise that ‘agricultural produce’ does not cover fish, poultry, or egg to grant exemption under Section 10(26AAB).

On appeal, the ITAT held that ‘agricultural produce’ connotes wider meaning to bring within its preview a large gamut of commodities which includes fish and poultry, and therefore allowed the exemption.

After considering the submission, the Bench noted that the Department has not disputed the fact that the definition of ‘agricultural produce’ is not provided in the Income Tax Act.

Highlighting that the expression incorporated u/s 10(26AAB) uses the term ‘any income’ and not ‘agricultural income’ of APMC or Board, the Bench observed that the Assessee has been appointed as regulator under Delhi Agricultural Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1976 to facilitate trading in fish, poultry, and eggs.

The Bench further observed that the definition of ‘agricultural produce’ as contained in Section 2(1)(a) read with the Schedule of APMC Act is wide enough to include all kinds of produce, including fish, poultry, and eggs.

Therefore, finding that the ‘fees’ obtained by the Assessee helps the purpose for which it is constituted i.e., regulating the marketing of agricultural produce, the High Court concluded that fees earned by the Assessee would constitute income derived from regulating agricultural produce.

Cause Title: PC Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Fish Poultry & Egg Marketing Committee [ITA 72/2023 & CM No.6063/2023 / 2023-Enterslice-13-HC-Del-IT]

Click here to read/download the Order

PC-Commissioner-Of-Income-Tax-verses-Fish-Poultry-And-Egg-Marketing-Committee