2002 (10) TMI 89 - HC - Income Tax

Co-operative society's interest income from members qualifies for tax exemption under section 80P(2)(a)(i)

Commissioner of Income-Tax Versus Krishak Sahkari Ganna Samiti Ltd.

Commissioner of Income-Tax Versus Krishak Sahkari Ganna Samiti Ltd. - [2002] 258 ITR 594, 125 TAXMANN 767 1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe core legal question considered by the Court was whether, based on the facts and circumstances of the case and a proper interpretation of the objects of the co-operative society alongside the provisions of section 80P of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the interest earned by the assessee-co-operative society from its members was covered under section 80P(2)(a)(i) and thus exempt from income tax.Implicitly, the issues involved were:Whether the interest income earned by the co-operative society from its members qualifies for exemption under section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.The correct interpretation of the phrase 'providing credit facilities to its members' within section 80P(2)(a)(i), particularly whether the society's lending activity qualifies as providing credit facilities.The relevance of the society's objects and actual business activities in determining eligibility for exemption.The applicability of precedents interpreting section 80P and related provisions.2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSISIssue: Whether interest income earned by the co-operative society from its members is exempt under section 80P(2)(a)(i)Relevant legal framework and precedents: Section 80P of the Income-tax Act, 1961, provides for deduction of income of co-operative societies from tax under specified conditions. Sub-section (2)(a)(i) specifically exempts profits and gains of business attributable to the activity of providing credit facilities to its members.Earlier provisions under the Income-tax Act, 1922, and amendments such as insertion of section 14(3) and section 81, were discussed to provide historical context to section 80P's enactment. The legislative intent was to encourage co-operative societies, particularly those engaged in banking or credit activities.Several decisions were cited by the Revenue to argue a narrow interpretation of 'providing credit facilities':It was contended that only co-operative societies whose main or chief activity is banking or providing credit facilities to members are eligible for exemption.In CIT v. Madras Autorickshaw Drivers Co-operative Society Ltd., it was held impermissible to segregate income from credit activities and non-credit activities if the society's true nature is not that of providing credit facilities.In Addl. CIT v. U.P. Co-operative Cane Union, the court held that 'providing credit facilities' draws its color from banking activity, but the chief source of income need not be exclusively from credit activities.Supreme Court precedents emphasized the burden on the assessee to prove that income falls within the scope of exemption and cautioned against liberal interpretation that distorts plain language.Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court examined the objects of the society as set out in the approved Pratiman Upvidhiyan of Sahkari Ganna Vikas Samitiyan, particularly object No. 4, which states: 'Providing better quality of seeds of sugarcane, manure and fertilizer, pesticides, agricultural implements, irrigation equipments and arrangement of other articles for agricultural purposes and to provide or to arrange credit facilities for this purpose to its members.'The Court noted that the society's lending activity was directed towards enabling members to purchase agricultural inputs, and loans were given only to members, with interest charged. This lending was not incidental to credit sales of goods but was a distinct activity of providing credit facilities for agricultural purposes.The Court distinguished the present case from precedents relied upon by the Revenue, which dealt with societies not engaged in lending or providing credit facilities as a main or substantial activity.Further, the Court referred to a binding Division Bench decision (CIT v. Co-operative Cane Development Union Ltd.) which held that the expression 'attributable to' in section 80P(2)(c) is wider than 'derived from' and includes income connected with or incidental to the carrying on of the business, including interest on statutory investments.Applying this reasoning, the Court held that the interest income earned by the society from lending to members was attributable to the society's business of providing credit facilities and thus exempt under section 80P(2)(a)(i).Key evidence and findings: The approved bye-laws and objects of the society, particularly the express provision for lending or arranging credit facilities to members for purchasing agricultural inputs, were central. The society's actual practice of lending cash to members and charging interest was also significant.Application of law to facts: The Court applied the statutory language and legislative intent to the society's objects and activities, concluding that the society was engaged in providing credit facilities to its members within the meaning of section 80P(2)(a)(i).Treatment of competing arguments: The Court acknowledged the Revenue's argument that the society was not primarily a credit society but rejected it on the ground that the society's objects and actual business included lending to members. The Court distinguished the Revenue's cited precedents as inapplicable to the facts here.Conclusion: The Court answered the reference question in the affirmative, holding that the interest income earned by the society from its members was exempt under section 80P(2)(a)(i).3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGSThe Court preserved the following crucial legal reasoning verbatim from the binding Division Bench precedent:'Clause (c) of section 80P(2) exempts income of co-operative societies to the extent mentioned in that section if the profits or gains are 'attributable' to the activity in which the co-operative society is engaged. The findings are that under statutory provisions the co-operative society is bound to invest 25 percent of its profits in Government securities. The assessee complied with this provision. In the process, it earned interest on these investments. The question is whether such profits or gains are attributable to the activity of supplying sugarcane carried on by the assessee. In Cambay Electric Supply Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT, the Supreme Court held that the expression, attributable to' is much wider than the expression 'derived from'. The expression 'attributable to' suggests that the Legislature intended to cover receipts from sources other than the actual conduct of the business of the assessee. The investment of the statutory percentage of its profits in Government securities was a condition of the carrying on of the business. The profits or gains from such investments were connected with or incidental to the carrying on of the actual business. They were, in our opinion, rightly held by the Tribunal to be attributable to the activity carried on by the assessee within the meaning of clause (c) aforesaid.'The core principles established include:The phrase 'providing credit facilities to its members' in section 80P(2)(a)(i) must be interpreted in light of the society's objects and actual business activities.Income attributable to lending activities carried on for the benefit of members qualifies for exemption, even if the society's main business includes other activities.The expression 'attributable to' is broader than 'derived from' and covers income connected with or incidental to the business activity.The burden lies on the assessee to prove that the income falls within the exemption provisions.Liberal interpretation of exemption provisions should not distort the plain language of the statute.Final determination on the issue was that the interest income earned by the assessee-co-operative society from its members was exempt under section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.