- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Commissioner Of Income-Tax v. Dugdh Utpadak Sahkari Sangh Ltd.
Court: R.K. Agrawal, J. — Summary of Opinion (Income-tax Reference Nos. 153 & 29 of 1987)
Factual and Procedural Background
These matters are two references under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi:
- Income-tax Reference No. 153 of 1987 (assessment year 1971–72): Tribunal referred whether deduction under section 80P(2)(d) is allowable on the gross amount of interest ignoring section 80B(5) (which defines “gross total income”) and without applying section 64.
- Income-tax Reference No. 29 of 1987 (assessment year 1979–80): Tribunal referred whether deduction under section 80P(2)(d) was allowable on the gross amount of income from interest in that assessment year.
The respondent in both references is a co-operative society. For the relevant years the society claimed deductions under section 80P(2)(d) on the gross amount of interest (Rs. 1,28,948 for 1971–72 and Rs. 2,18,557 for 1979–80). The Income-tax Officer found, inter alia, that during 1971–72 the society had to pay interest on loans amounting to Rs. 3,50,580; and in 1979–80 payments of interest exceeded receipts so no separate deduction could be given. On appeal the Tribunal allowed the deduction on the gross amount; the Revenue's appeal before the Tribunal failed and the questions were referred to this Court for opinion.
The Court heard counsel for the Revenue and counsel for the respondent and considered submissions, statutory provisions, and several precedents before answering the referred questions.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was legally correct in holding that deduction under section 80P(2)(d) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 is allowable on the gross amount of interest ignoring the provisions of section 80B(5) and without applying the provisions of section 64 (Reference No.153 of 1987).
- Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was legally correct in holding that deduction under section 80P(2)(d) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was allowable on the gross amount of income from interest in the assessment year 1979–80 (Reference No.29 of 1987).
Arguments of the Parties
Revenue's Arguments
- The Revenue, through learned standing counsel Sri Shambhu Chopra, argued that section 80B(5) must be read so that only the net amount of income derived by the respondent is to be allowed as deduction under section 80P(2)(d).
- The Revenue relied on precedent authorities, specifically Hansraj Gordhandas v. H.H. Dave (AIR 1970 SC 755) and Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Doaba Co-Operative Sugar Mills Ltd. ([1998] 230 ITR 774 (P&H)), as supporting the Revenue's position or for relevant legal principles it relied upon.
Respondent's Arguments
- The respondent, through Sri Vikram Gulati, submitted that a plain reading of section 80P(2)(d) shows that the whole of the income received by way of interest or dividend by a co-operative society from its investments is to be allowed as a deduction; the provisions of section 80AB or section 80B(5) would not be attracted to cut down that deduction.
- The respondent argued that section 80AB was not given retrospective effect (unlike section 80AA) and therefore could not affect the assessments in question; reliance was placed on Cloth Traders (P.) Ltd. v. Additional CIT ([1979] 118 ITR 243 (SC)) and on Circular No. 341 dated May 10, 1982 (1982] 137 ITR (St.) 4) which stated section 80AB was made effective from April 1, 1981 and not retrospectively.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Hansraj Gordhandas v. H.H. Dave, Assistant Collector of Central Excise and Customs, AIR 1970 SC 755 | Principle that in a taxing statute there is no room for intendment; if taxpayer falls within plain terms of exemption it cannot be denied benefit by reference to supposed intention. | The Court cited this authority for the established principle of strict interpretation of exemption provisions in taxing statutes (para 8), but applied it within the context of statutory amendments (section 80AB) and subsequent declaratory interpretations. |
| Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Doaba Co-Operative Sugar Mills Ltd., [1998] 230 ITR 774 (P&H) | Held that section 80P(2)(d) allows whole deduction of income by way of interest or dividends derived by a co-operative society from investments with any other co-operative society; no adjustment required even if interest paid exceeds interest received. | The Court reviewed this decision but declined to follow it, noting that the Punjab & Haryana High Court did not take into account the provisions and retrospective/declaratory effect of section 80AB (para 21). |
| Cloth Traders (P.) Ltd. v. Additional CIT, [1979] 118 ITR 243 (SC) | Held that under section 80M the assessee was entitled to relief of the entire amount of dividend income without deduction of interest paid on borrowings to acquire shares. | The Court noted this decision had been cited by the respondent but also recorded that Cloth Traders was subsequently overruled by the apex court in Distributors (Baroda) P. Ltd. (para 15–16); the Court deprecated reliance on an overruled decision (para 16–17). |
| Distributors (Baroda) P. Ltd. v. Union of India, [1985] 155 ITR 120 (SC) | Overruled Cloth Traders and interpreted section 80M differently; addressed retrospective effect of section 80AA (held declaratory and in retrospective operation). | The Court relied on Distributors (Baroda) for the proposition that legislative provisions (specifically section 80AA and by parity section 80AB) were declaratory/retrospective and must be treated as such in interpreting deductions under Chapter VI-A (para 18, para 19). |
| State of Orissa v. Nalinikanta Muduli, [2004] 7 SCC 19 : AIR 2004 SC 4272 | Rebuked the practice of citing decisions that had been overruled without disclosing that they were overruled; emphasized counsel's duty to assist the court and not mislead it. | The Court invoked this authority to deprecate the respondent’s counsel citing Cloth Traders (an overruled decision) without disclosing its subsequent overruling (para 16–17). |
| H.H. Sir Rama Varma v. CIT, [1994] 205 ITR 433 | Held that, by parity of reasoning with Distributors (Baroda), section 80AB must be held to declare the law as it always stood in relation to deductions under Chapter VI-A. | The Court relied on this decision to support the view that section 80AB is declaratory/retrospective in operation and therefore relevant to the computation of deductions under section 80P(2)(d) (para 19). |
| Motilal Pesticides (I.) Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT, [2000] 243 ITR 26 | Followed the position that section 80AB is declaratory/retrospective (as per H.H. Sir Rama Varma and Distributors (Baroda)). | The Court noted that Motilal Pesticides followed the declaratory interpretation, reinforcing the precedential chain supporting retrospective effect of section 80AB (para 20). |
| N.N. Bhagwati v. CIT, [2001] 247 ITR 206 (SC) | Followed earlier decisions and additionally held that the Board's circular claiming section 80AB as prospective in operation is of no relevance. | The Court relied on N.N. Bhagwati to reject the Board's circular relied upon by the respondent and to hold that section 80AB is declaratory/retrospective; this formed part of the Court's reason for answering the references against the assessee (para 21). |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court's analysis proceeded by examining the statutory text and the effect of later legislative and judicial developments that bear on the temporal operation of deductions under Chapter VI-A:
- The Court observed that section 80P(2)(d) on its face provides for deduction of the whole of such income received by way of interest or dividend by a co-operative society from its investments. However, that provision must be read subject to the provisions of section 80AB, which was inserted by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1980 and came into effect from 1st April 1981 (para 7, para 12).
- The Court held that section 80B(5) — which defines “gross total income” — is not directly relevant to the question whether a deduction under Chapter VI-A is to be given on a gross or net basis; section 80B(5) merely defines gross total income and does not specify whether Chapter VI-A deductions should be given on gross or net income (para 7).
- The Court quoted the text of section 80AB and emphasised its operative effect: for computing a deduction under any relevant section in Chapter VI-A, the amount of income of the specified nature "as computed in accordance with the provisions of this Act (before making any deduction under this Chapter)" shall alone be deemed to be the amount of income of that nature included in the assessee's gross total income (para 12).
- The Court considered precedent authorities. It acknowledged the general interpretive principle stated in Hansraj Gordhandas about strictness in favour of the taxpayer when an exemption is plainly within terms (para 8), but it placed greater weight on subsequent decisions and legislative steps that clarified the operation of Chapter VI-A.
- The Court examined the Punjab & Haryana High Court decision in Doaba Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd., which allowed deduction of the whole interest/dividend amount, but concluded that that decision did not take into account section 80AB's retrospective/declaratory effect. Consequently the Court declined to follow Doaba (para 14, para 21).
- The Court noted that Cloth Traders had been relied upon by the respondent but recorded that Cloth Traders was later overruled by the apex court in Distributors (Baroda). The Court reprimanded the practice of citing overruled decisions without disclosing their subsequent overruling (para 16–17).
- The Court referred to Distributors (Baroda) and subsequent authorities (H.H. Sir Rama Varma, Motilal Pesticides, N.N. Bhagwati) that held, or followed the view, that section 80AB was enacted to declare the law as it had always been (i.e., declaratory/retrospective effect). N.N. Bhagwati additionally held that the Board's circular that claimed section 80AB to be prospective was irrelevant (para 18–21).
- On the basis of these authorities and the statutory language of section 80AB, the Court concluded that deductions under section 80P(2)(d) must be computed in the light of section 80AB and that the Tribunal was not legally correct in allowing the deduction on the gross amount of interest while ignoring section 80AB (para 7, para 21–22).
Holding and Implications
Holding: The Court answered both referred questions in the negative — i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee (para 22).
Implications:
- The direct consequence of the Court's decision is that the deduction under section 80P(2)(d) cannot be allowed simply on the gross amount of interest without applying the provisions of section 80AB; section 80AB, being declaratory/retrospective as held in relevant precedents, affects the computation of such deductions.
- The assessee's claims to deduction on the gross interest amounts in the referenced assessment years are not sustained by the Tribunal's approach that ignored section 80AB; the outcome is therefore favourable to the Revenue on the referred questions.
- The Court recorded that there shall be no order as to costs (para 22).
- The opinion also underscores the Court's disapproval of citation of overruled precedents without disclosure; it relied on later apex decisions to resolve the issue (para 16–19).
Note: This summary is drawn exclusively from the text of the provided opinion and does not add factual or legal material beyond that opinion.
R.K Agrawal, J.:— Income-tax Reference No. 153 of 1987 relates to the assessment year 1971–72 wherein the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, has referred the following question of law under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as “the Act”, for opinion to this court:
“Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was legally correct in holding that deduction under section 80P(2)(d) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 is allowable on the gross amount of interest ignoring the provisions of section 80B(5) which defines the term ‘gross total income’ in such a way that it could only mean net income before making any deduction under Chapter VI-A or section 280-O and without applying the provisions of section 64?”
2. Whereas Income-tax Reference No. 29 of 1987 relates to the assessment year 1979–80 wherein the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, has referred the following question of law under section 256(1) of the Act for the opinion to this court:
“Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was legally correct in holding that deduction under section 80P(2)(d) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was allowable on the gross amount of income from interest in the assessment year 1979–80?”
3. Even though the two questions have been worded differently the controversy is the same as to whether the deduction under section 80P(2)(d) of the Act was allowable on the gross amount of income from interest or the net amount. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present references are as follows:
The respondent is a co-operative society. For the previous years relevant to the assessment years 1971–72 and 1979–80 the respondent had claimed deduction under section 80P(2)(d) of the Act on the gross amount of interest amounting to Rs. 1,28,948 and Rs. 2,18,557 respectively. The Income-tax Officer had found that during the assessment year 1971–72 it had to pay a sum of Rs. 3,50,580 as interest on loan taken by it from various bodies. During the assessment year 1979–80 the Income-tax Officer found that payment of interest exceeded the receipts and, therefore, no separate deduction under section 80P(2)(d) of the Act can be given. In the appeal preferred by the respondents the deduction has been allowed on the gross amount. The Revenue's appeal before the Tribunal has failed.
4. We have heard Sri Shambhu Chopra, learned counsel for the Revenue, and Sri Vikram Gulati, learned counsel for the respondent.
5. Sri Shambhu Chopra, learned standing counsel appearing for the Revenue submitted that in view of section 80B(5) of the Act, only the net amount of the income derived by the respondent is to be allowed as deduction under section 80P(2)(d) of the Act. He invited the attention of the court to the following decisions:
(1) Hansraj Gordhandas v. H.H Dave, Assistant Collector of Central Excise and Customs, AIR 1970 SC 755; and
(2) Commissioner Of Income-Tax v. Doaba Co-Operative Sugar Mills Ltd., [1998] 230 ITR 774 (P&H).
6. Sri Vikram Gulati, learned counsel for the respondent, however, submitted that from the mere reading of section 80P(2)(d) of the Act it clearly shows that the whole of the income received by way of interest or dividend by a co-operative society from its investment is to be allowed as a deduction under the aforesaid provisions and the provisions of section 80AB or section 80B(5) of the Act will not be attracted at all. He submitted that unlike section 80AA, section 80AB has not been given retrospective effect and, therefore, the said section would be of no help to the Department. He relied upon the decision of the apex court in the case of Cloth Traders (P) Ltd. v. Additional Cit, Gujarat-I, [1979] 118 ITR 243. He has also placed reliance upon the Circular No. 341 dated May 10, 1982 (see [1982] 137 ITR (St.) 4) issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes in which it has been stated that section 80AB has been made effective from April 1, 1981 and not retrospectively.
7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties we find that even though section 80P(2)(d) of the Act provided deduction of the whole of such income received by way of interest or dividend by the co-operative society from its investment with any other co-operative society, it is subject to the provisions of section 80AB of the Act, which was inserted by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1980, with effect from 1st April, 1981. Section 80B(5) of the Act is of no relevance as it defines “gross total income”. It does not specify as to whether deduction of the gross income or net income has to be given under Chapter VI-A of the Act. Section 80AB of the Act as it stood during the relevant period reads as under:
“80AB. Where any deduction is required to be made or allowed under any section (except section 80M) included in this Chapter under the heading ‘C-Deductions in respect of certain incomes’ in respect of any income of the nature specified in that section which is included in the gross total income of the assessee, then, notwithstanding anything contained in that section, for the purpose of computing the deduction under that section, the amount of income of that nature as computed in accordance with the provisions of this Act (before making any deduction under this Chapter) shall alone be deemed to be the amount of income of that nature which is derived or received by the assessee and which is included in his gross total income.”
8. In the case of Hansraj Gordhandas, AIR 1970 SC 755 the apex court has held that it is well established that in a taxing statute there is no room for any intendment and if the taxpayer is within the plain terms of the exemption it cannot be denied its benefit by calling in aid any supposed intention of the exempting authority.
9. In the case of Doaba Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd., [1998] 230 ITR 774 the Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that section 80P(2)(d) of the Act allows whole deduction of an income by way of interest or dividends derived by a co-operative society from its investment with any other cooperative society and this provision does not make any distinction in regard to the source of the investment, because the section envisages deduction in respect of any income derived by the co-operative society from any investment with a co-operative society. It is immaterial whether any interest paid to the co-operative society exceeds the interest received from the bank on investments. The section does not speak of any adjustment as sought to be made out. The provision does not indicate any such adjustment in regard to interest derived from the co-operative society from its investment in any other co-operative society.
10. In the case of Cloth Traders (P.) Ltd., [1979] 118 ITR 243 the apex court has held that under section 80M of the Act the assessee is entitled to relief of the entire amount of dividend income without deduction of interest paid on borrowings in acquiring shares.
11. It may be mentioned here that the decision in the case of Cloth Traders (P.) Ltd., [1979] 118 ITR 243 (SC) has been overruled by the apex court in the case of Distributors (Baroda) P. Ltd. v. Union of India, [1985] 155 ITR 120. Notwithstanding that the decision of the apex court in the case of Cloth Traders (P.) Ltd., [1979] 118 ITR 243 (SC) has been overruled subsequently by the apex court in the case of Distributors (Baroda) P. Ltd., [1985] 155 ITR 120, learned counsel appearing for the respondent has cited the aforesaid decision. We are constrained to deprecate such a practice. The apex court in the case of State Of Orissa v. Nalinikanta Muduli, [2004] AIR SCW 4713; (2004) 7 SCC 19 : [2004] AIR 2004 SC 4272, has deprecated such practice in the following words (page 4273):
“It is strange that a decision which has been overruled by this court nearly quarter of a century back was cited by the Bar and the court did not take note of this position and disposed of the matter placing reliance on the said overruled decision. It does not appear that the decision of this court reversing the judgment of the High Court was brought to the notice of the learned single judge who was dealing the matter. It is a very unfortunate situation that learned counsel for the accused who is supposed to know the decision did not bring this aspect to the notice of the learned single judge. Members of the Bar are officers of the court. They have a bounden duty to assist the court and not mislead it. Citing judgment of a court which has been overruled by a larger Bench of the same High Court or this court without disclosing the fact that it has been overruled is a matter of serious concern. It is one thing that the court notices the judgment overruling the earlier decision and decides on the applicability of the later judgment to the facts under consideration on it.”
12. It may be mentioned here that the Legislature by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1980 had introduced sections 80AA and 80AB into the Act by the reason of the interpretation placed by the apex court upon section 80M in Cloth Traders (P.) Ltd.'s case, [1979] 118 ITR 243 (SC). Section 80AA was introduced with retrospective effect from April 1, 1968 and section 80AB was introduced with effect from April 1, 1981. In the case of Distributors (Baroda) P. Ltd., [1985] 155 ITR 120 (SC) the retrospective effect of section 80AA was under challenge. The apex court interpreted section 80M in a manner different from that placed upon it in Cloth Traders (P.) Ltd., [1979] 118 ITR 243 (SC) and overruled the said decision. It did not consider the question of constitutional validity of the retrospective operation of section 80AA but held that it was in retrospective operation, merely declaratory of the law as it always had been since April 1, 1968, when the provisions of Chapter VI-A were introduced.
13. The apex court in the case of H.H Sir Rama Varma v. CIT, [1994] 205 ITR 433 has held that on a parity of reasoning given by it in the case of Distributors (Baroda) P. Ltd., [1985] 155 ITR 120 (SC) it must be held that section 80AB was enacted to declare the law as it always stood in relation to the deductions to be made in respect of the income specified under the head “C” of Chapter VI-A.
14. The aforesaid decision has subsequently been followed by the apex court in the cases of Motilal Pesticides (I.) Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT, [2000] 243 ITR 26 and N.N Bhagwati v. CIT, [2001] 247 ITR 206 (SC).
15. The apex court in the case of N.N Bhagwati v. CIT, [2001] 247 ITR 206 (SC) has held that the circular of the Board wherein it has been stated that section 80AB was prospective in operation is of no relevance. With great respect to the learned judges of the Punjab and Haryana High Court we are unable to persuade ourselves to follow the view taken by them in the case of Doaba Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd., [1998] 230 ITR 774 as the provisions of section 80AB of the Act which has been held to be declaratory and retrospective in operation have not been taken into consideration.
16. In view of the foregoing discussion, we answer both the questions of law referred to us in the negative, i.e, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
Alert