1983 (9) TMI 47 - HC - Income Tax

Court rules donations for building construction by mutual benefit society not taxable under Income Tax Act

Commissioner Of Income-Tax, AP -II, Hyderabad Versus West Godavari District Rice Millers Association

The court ruled in favor of the assessee, determining that the subscriptions and donations received from members for building construction are not taxable ... Mutual Benefit Society Issues Involved:1. Taxability of subscriptions and donations received from members u/s 28(iii) or u/s 56 of the I.T. Act, 1961.2. Applicability of the doctrine of mutuality for immunity from income-tax.Summary:Issue 1: Taxability of Subscriptions and Donations u/s 28(iii) or u/s 56 of the I.T. Act, 1961The court examined whether the subscriptions and donations received by the West Godavari District Rice Millers Association from its members for the construction of a building are taxable u/s 28(iii) or u/s 56 of the I.T. Act, 1961. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) initially added the collections to the taxable income, considering them as remuneration for services rendered to members. However, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (AAC) held that these collections were not taxable income. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) supported this view, emphasizing that the association did not perform specific services for its members, as clarified by the District Collector's endorsement. The court concluded that s. 28(iii) is not attracted since the amounts were not received for specific services rendered to members, and s. 56 has no application due to the doctrine of mutuality.Issue 2: Applicability of the Doctrine of MutualityThe court addressed whether the assessee could claim immunity from income-tax under the doctrine of mutuality. It is well-settled that the surplus accruing to a mutual association is not income or profit for income-tax purposes, provided there is complete identity between contributors and participants. The court noted that the association is a mutual benefit society formed by rice millers for mutual help, and the surplus is returned to members in the same capacity. The court rejected the Department's argument based on r. 21 of the memorandum of association, which stated that surplus should be transferred to similar associations, by citing precedents from the Madras High Court and the House of Lords. The court held that the doctrine of mutuality applies, and the subscriptions and donations received are not taxable.Conclusion:The court answered both questions in the negative and in favor of the assessee, concluding that the subscriptions and donations received from members for the construction of the building are not taxable, and the doctrine of mutuality applies, providing immunity from income-tax. No costs were awarded, and the advocate's fee was set at Rs. 350.