Surplus funds to members not taxable income under principle of mutuality

The court held that the assessee-organisation did not derive taxable income from its transactions with members. The surplus funds were considered savings returned to members, not constituting profits. The principle of mutuality was found to apply, with complete identity between contributors and participators. Consequently, all issues were decided against the Revenue, and the reference was disposed of with no order as to costs.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the assessee-organisation derived profits and gains of business chargeable to tax under section 28 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
2. Whether the principle of mutuality, as enunciated in Styles' case, was satisfied in the assessee's transactions with its members, and whether the savings were not chargeable to tax on the ground of mutuality.
3. Whether the assessee organisation in its transactions with its members derived any income chargeable to tax under the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Profits and Gains Chargeable to Tax
The court examined whether the assessee-organisation derived profits and gains of business for the assessment years 1967-68 and 1968-69 that were chargeable to tax under section 28 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Income-tax Officer initially held that the assessee derived taxable income from its transactions with its members. However, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner concluded that the amounts received by the assessee did not constitute income, as the character of the receipt did not constitute a receipt of income. The Tribunal, by a majority judgment, upheld this view, stating that the surplus was merely a return of the members' own contributions and did not constitute taxable income. Consequently, the court answered this question in the negative and against the Revenue.

Issue 2: Principle of Mutuality
The principle of mutuality was central to determining whether the savings were chargeable to tax. The court noted that the assessee was a no profit no loss organisation, and the contributions made by members were used to subsidize higher freight costs for transporting cement over longer distances. The surplus funds were distributed back to the members on a pro-rata basis, indicating that the contributors to the common fund were also the participators in the benefits. The court referenced the case of CIT v. Bombay Oilseeds and Oil Exchange Ltd., which established that the test of mutuality is satisfied when there is complete identity between the contributors and the participators. The court found that this principle applied to the assessee's case, as the surplus did not constitute profits but were merely savings returned to the members. Thus, the court answered this question in the affirmative and against the Revenue.

Issue 3: Income Chargeable to Tax
The court examined whether the assessee organisation derived any income chargeable to tax from its transactions with its members. The court found that the contributions made by members were used to cover the organisation's expenses and any surplus was credited back to the members' accounts. The court concluded that the surplus did not represent profits accruing to the organisation but were merely savings of the members. Therefore, no income chargeable to tax accrued to the assessee-organisation. The court answered this question in the negative and against the Revenue.

Conclusion
The court concluded that the assessee-organisation did not derive any taxable income from its transactions with its members, as the principle of mutuality applied. The surplus funds were merely savings returned to the members and did not constitute profits. Consequently, all the questions were answered against the Revenue, and the reference was disposed of with no order as to costs.

---