THE CITIZEN CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED, THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, HYDERABAD   versus ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE~9(1), HYDERABAD
[2017] 9 S.C.R. 361, Supreme Court of India, 2017
Outcome: Dismissed (Dismissed)
Segment: Ratio
[2017] 9 S.C.R. 361 
THE CITIZEN CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED, 
A 
THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, HYDERABAD 
v. 
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE~9(1), . 
HYDERABAD 
(Civil Appeal No. I 0245 of2017) 
B 
. 
AUGUST08,2017 
. 
[A. K. 81100 ANDASllOKBHUSHAN, JJ.] . 
Co-operative · Soi:ieties -
Income Tax Act, 196I. · -
· s. 80P(2)(a)(i) ·:- Deduction under~ ;When. not available ~Appellant-
C 
society claiming to be a co-operative i;ociety, sought deduction in 
respect of its income -Assessing Officer held that deduction uls. 80P 
was not admissible to the appellant as the benefit of deduction was 
admissible to those co-operative societies that carry on business of 
banking or providing credit facilities to its members, however, the 
D 
appellant was carrying on the banking business for pil.blic at large 
and its operation was not con.fined to its members only - Appeal 
thereagainst rejected by CIT (A) upholding the oiver of Assessing 
·Officer - Further appeal to ITAT and High Court, dismissed - On 
appeal, held: Appellant was catering to two distinct categories of 
people, the first was that of 'resident members' and the other 
E 
category was of 'nominal members' who were making deposits with 
the assessee for the purpose of obtaining loans, etc. and were not 
members in real sense - Thus,. the activity ofthe appellant was that 
of .finance business and cannot be termed as co-operative society -
Further, the appellant was engaged in the activity of granting loans
F 
to general public as well - Therefore, the appellant cannot be 
treated as a co-operative society meant only for its members and . 
providing credit facilities to its members - Such a society cannot 
claim the benefit of s. 80P - Mutually Aided Co-operative Societies 
Act, I995 - Banking. 
Income Tax Act, I96I - s. BOP - Interpretation of - Held: 
G 
Section BOP is a benevolent provision enacted by the Parliament to 
encourage and promote growth of co-operative sector in the 
economic life of the country - Therefore, such a provision has to be 
read liberally, reasonably and in favour of the assessee -
Interpretation of Statutes - Benevolent/Beneficial provision. 
H 
361
362 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017) 9 S.C.R. 
A 
Income Tax Act, 1961 - s. 80P(4) - 'Co-operative Bank' -
When not - Whether activity/business of the appellant was that qf a 
co-operative bank governed by Banking Regulation Act, 1949 and 
hence it was not entitled to benefit of deduction u/s. 80P - Held: 
Sub-sec.(4) to s. 80P is in the nature of a proviso and provides that 
8 
deduction u/s. 80P shall not be admissible to a co-operative bank -
Howeve1; in the instant case, the appellant does not get covered 
under the definition of 'co-operative bank' - Further, RBI itself 
had clarified that the business of appellant does not amount to that 
of a co-operative bank - Therefore, appellant would not come within 
the mischief of sub-sec. (4) of s. BOP - Finance Act; 2006 - Banking 
C Regulation Act, 1949. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 Section SOP of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is a 
benevolent provision which is enacted by the Parliament in order 
to encourage and promote growth of co-operative sector in the 
D economic life of the ('Ountry. It was done pursuant to declared 
policy of the Government. Therefore, such a provision has to be 
read liberally, reasonably and in favour of the assessee. It is also 
trite that such a provision has to be construed as to effectuate 
the object of the Legislature and not to defeat it. Therefore, all 
E those co-operative societies which fall within the purview of 
Section SOP of the 1961 Act are entitled to deduction in respect
of any income referred to in sub-section (2) thereof. Clause( a) of 
sub-section (2) gives exemption of whole of the amount of profits 
and gains of business attributable to any one or more of such 
activities which are mentioned in sub-section (2).[Para 18)(375-
F C-F) 
G 
H 
1.2 Sub-section (i) of clause (a) of sub-section (2) recognises 
two kinds of co-operative societies, namely: (i) those carrying on 
the business of banking and; (ii) those providing credit facilities 
to its members. (Para 19)[375-F-G) 
1.3 With the insertion of sub-section (4) by the Finance 
Act, 2006, which is in the nature of a proviso to Section SOP, it is 
made clear that such a deduction shall not be admissible to a co-
operative bank. However, if it is a primary agriculture credit 
society or a primary co-operative agriculture and rural
THE CITIZEN CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD. v. ASST. COMMNR. 
363 
OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-9( I), HYDERABAD 
development bank, the deduction would still be provided. Thus, A 
. co-operative banks arc now specifically excluded from the ambit 
of Section 80P of the Act. (Para 231(377-E-F) 
2. However, the appellant does not get covered by the 
definition of 'co-operative bank'. It is also a matter of. common 
knowledge that In order to do the business of a co-operative bank, B 
it is imperative to haYe a licence from the Reserve Bank of India, 
which the appellant does not possess. Not only this, as noticed, 
the Reserve Bank of India had itself clarified that the business of 
the appellant does not amount to th.at of a co-operative bank. 
The appellant, therefore, would not c'ome within the mischief of 
sub-section (4) of Section SOP. (Para 24)(377-G-HJ 
C 
I 
3. However, it is pointed out ~hat the main reason for 
disentitling the appellant from getting the deduction provided 
under Section SOP of the Act is not sub-section (4) thereof. The 
Assessing Officer, after discussing in detail the activities of the 
appellant, noticed that the activities of the appellant were in D 
violations of the provisions of the Mutually Aided Co-operative 
Societies Act, 1995 (MACSA) undcnvhich it was formed. It was 
pointed out by the Assessing Officer that the asscssec was 
catering to two distinct categories of people. The first. category 
was that of resident members or ordinary members. There is
no 
any difficulty as far as this category is concerned. However, the 
assessee had carved out another category of 'nominal members'. 
These are those members who. were making deposits with the 
assessee for the purpose of obtaining loans, etc. and, in fact, they 
were not members in real sense. Most of the business of the 
appellant was with. this seconil category of persons who were 
giving deposits which arc kept in Fixed Deposits with a motive 
E 
F 
to earn maximum returns. A portion of these deposits was utilised 
to advance gold loans, etc. to the members of the first category. 
As a matter of fact, the depositors and borrowers were quite 
distinct. In reality, such activity of the appellant was that of finance 
G 
business and cannot be termed as co-operative society. The 
appellant was engaged in the activity of granting loans to general 
public as well. All this wlls done without any approval from the 
Registrar of the Societies. With indulgence in such kind of activity 
by the appellant, it was. remarked by the Assessing Officer that 
' 
H
364 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017) 9 S.C.R. 
A 
the activity of the appellant was in violation of the Co-operative 
Societies Act. Moreover, it was a co-operative credit society 
which was not entitled to deduction under Section 80P(2)(a){i) of 
the Act. (Para 25](378-A-E) 
4. Keeping the aforesaid aspects in mind, the conclusion is 
B 
ob,·ious, namely, the appellant cannot be treated as a co-operative 
society meant only for its members and provid_ing credit facilities 
to its members. Such a society cannot claim the benefit of Section 
80P of the Act. (Para 27)(379-D-E) 
c 
D 
E 
F 
Commissioner of Income Tax v. Pu11jab State Co-
operatfre Bank ltd. (2008) 300 ITR 24 (Punjab & 
Haryana 11.C.) - approved. 
Bajaj Tempo Limited, Bombay v. Commissioner of 
Income Tax, Bombay City-III, Bombay (1992) 3 SCC 
78; Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay & Ors. v. 
Mahindra and Mahindra Limited & Ors. (1983) 4 SCC 
392 : (1983) 3 SCR 773: Kera/a State Cooperative 
Marketing Federation Limited & Ors. v. Commissioner 
of Income Tax (1998) 5 SCC 48 : (1998) 3 SCR 443 -
relied on. 
Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore v. Bangalore 
Dist/. Coop. Central Bank Ltd. (1998) 6 SCC 129; 
Commissioner of Income Tax, 
Jala11dhar 
v. 
Nawpnshahar Centrnl Cooperative Bank Limited (2012) 
13 sec 788 - referred to. 
(1998) 6 sec 129 
c2012) 13 sec 788 
(1992) 3 sec 78 
G (1983) 3 SCR 773 
(1998) 3 SCR 443 
(2008) 300 ITR 24 
Case Law Reference 
referred to 
referred to 
relied on 
relied on 
relied on
approved 
Para 12 
Para 12 
Para 18 
Para 18 
Para 20 
Para 21 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 10245 
H of2017. 
I 
I 
I 1· 
I 
i 
! 
{ 
" 
!
THE CITIZEN CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD. v. ASST. COMMNR. 
365 
. -
. 
OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-9( I), HYDERABAD 
F rornthe Judgment and Order dated 17 .07.2013 of the High Court 
A 
'.>· 
of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Income TaxTribunal 
AppearNo. ITTA No. 292 of2013. 
'tr 
V. Shekhar, Sr. Adv., K. Shivraj Choudhuri, G. V. R. Choudary, 
K. Shivraj Choudhuri, A. Chandra Sekhar, D. L. Narasimha Rao, Advs. 
f..: 
for tije Appellant. 
B 
s 
K. Radhakrishnan, Sr, Adv., Ms. PurnimaBhat Kale, Ms. Bhakti 
Pasrij ll Sethi, Anil Kati yar, Ad vs. for the Respondent. 
,, 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by . 
A. K. SIKRI, J .. 1. Leave granted. 
c 
2. The appellant herein, after losing in all the fora below, has 
knocked the doors of this Court by means of the present appeal seeking 
the benefit of Section SOP of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter 
referred to as the 'Act'). The Assessing Officer held that deduction in 
respect of income of co-operative societies under Section SOP of the 
D 
Act is not admissible to the appellant as the benefit of deduction, as 
contemplated under the said provision is, inter alia, admissibie to those 
co-operative societies which carry on business ofbankirig or providing 
credit facilities to its members. On the contrary, the appellant society 
was carrying on the banking business for public at large and for all 
practical purposes it was acting like a co-operative bank governed by 
E 
the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, and its
operation was not confined to 
its members but outsiders as well. 
3. It may be noted at this stage itselfthat Section SOP of the Act 
· provides for certain deduction irirespect of incomes of the cocoperative 
societies. A co-operative society is defined by Section 2( 19) of the Act. 
F 
Where the gross total income of such co-operative societies includes 
any income referred to in sub-seclion. (2) of Section SOP, the sums 
specified in sub-secti.on (2) arc allowed as deduction in accordance with 
and subject to the provisions of the said Section, while computing the 
total income of the assessee. The profit exempted is the net profit included 
in the total income and not the gross profit of the business. Sub-section 
G 
(2) enlists those sums which are allowed as deductions. Clause (a) of 
' . 
sub-section (2) includes seven kinds of co-operative societies which ate 
entitled to this benefit, and in respect of the co-operative societies engaged 
ck 
in the activitiesmentioned in those seven classes, the whole of the ai:nount 
H
366 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 9 S.C.R. 
A of profits and gains of business attributable to anyone or more of such 
activities is exempted from income by allowing the said income as 
deduction. We are concerned with sub-clause (i) of clause (a) of sub-
section (2) of Section SOP which enlists a co-operative society engaged 
in carrying on the business of banking or providing credit facilities to its 
8 
members. For the sake of better understanding, we reproduce below 
the aforesaid portion of Section SOP: 
c 
"SOP. Deduction in respect of income of co-operative 
societies. - (I) Where. in the case of an assesee being a co-
operative society, the gross total income includes any income 
referred to in sub-section (2), there shall be deducted, in accordance 
with and subject to the provisions of this section, the sums specified 
in sub-section (2), in computing the total income of the assessee. 
(2) The sums referred to in sub-section (I) shall be the following, 
namely:-
D 
(a) in the case of a co-operative society engaged in -
E 
(i) carrying on the business of banking or providing credit facilities 
to its members, or 
xx 
xx 
xx 
the whole of the amount of profits and gains of business attributable 
to any one or more of such activities: 
xx 
xx 
xx" 
4. Section SOP was amended by the Finance Act, 2006 with effect 
from April 0 I, 2007 and sub-section (4) was inserted thereto. This sub-
F section ( 4) reads as under: 
G 
H 
"(4) The provisions of this section shall not
apply in relation to any 
co-operative bank other than a primary agricultural credit society 
or a primary co-operative agricultural and rural development bank. 
Etplanation. - For the purposes of this sub-section, -
(a) "co-operative bank" and "primary agricultural credit society" 
shall have the meanings respectively assigned to them in Part 
V of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 (I 0 of 1949); 
(b) "primary co-operative agricultural and rural development bank'' 
means a society having its area of operation confined to a
THE CITIZEN CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD. v. ASST. COMMNR. 
367 
OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-9(1 ), HYDERABAD [A. K. SIKRI, J .] 
taluk and the principal object of which is to provide for long-
A 
term credit for agricultural and rural development activities." 
5. As would be seen from the facts hereafter, .the appellant is a 
co-operative society. However, it has been deniecl the benefit of Section 
SOP on the ground that it is a co-operntive society of the nature covered 
. by sub-section (4) of Section SOP anc!, th¢refore, becomes discntitlcd to 
B 
get the benefit. The question, therefore, is as to whether the appellant is 
barred from claiming deduction in view of Section SOP( 4) of the Act. In 
order to ascertain the answer to this question, relevant facts are· 
. enumeratedhereinbelow: 
· 
. (i) The assessee was established on May 31, 1997 initially as a c 
Mutually Aided Co-operative Credit Society having been 
registered, under Section 5 of Andhra Pradesh Mutually Aided 
Co-operative Societies Act, 1995 with Registration No. AMC/ 
RR/DC0/9714 by Registrar ofMutuallyAided Co-operative 
Societies, Ranga Reddy. As operations of assessee over the 
years had increased manifold and as its operations· were 
D 
spread over States of erstwhile Andhra Pradesh, Maharashtra 
and Karnataka, the assessee got registered under the Multi 
State Co-operative Societies Act, 2002 in terms of certificate 
dated July 26, 2005 issued by Office of Central Registrar of . 
Co.:Operative Societies,
Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi. 
E 
· (ii) The assessee is being assessed to income tax since its 
inception. It has been claiming exemption under Section SOP 
of the Act which was being allowed by the Income Tax 
Authorities. As per the assessee, in course ofits operations, 
members deposit cash into their accounts-with the society 
F 
and they withdraw the same. It is claimed that earlier, none , 
of Income Tax Authorities had pointed out that acceptance 
of deposits from its members in cash and withdrawal thereof 
by them in cash would violate the provisions of Sections 269SS 
and 269T of the Act. Sections 269SS and 26cJT of the Act 
relate to mode of taking or accepting certain loans and 
G 
deposits and their repayment respectively. 
(iii) The assessee as Co-operative Society and assessee under 
PAN No. AAAAT3952F had filed return of income before 
Assistant Commissioi1cr of Income Tax, Circlc-9(1), 
H
368 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 9 S.C.R. 
Hyderabad for the Assessment Year 2009-l 0, for the year 
ending March 31, 2009 on September 30, 2009 declaring NIL 
income.· In the retLirn filed for the Assessment Year 2009· l 0, 
year ending with March 31, 2009, the assessee claimed a 
sum of Rs.4,26.37,0S II- as deduction under Section SOP of 
the Act. Return filed by the assessee was taken up for scrutiny 
under CASS (Computer Assisted Selection of Cases for 
Scrutiny) and notice under.Section 143(2) of the Act was 
issued. In response thereto, books of account were produced 
by the assessee society and information called fur was 
submitted. 
The Assessing Officer had arrived at 
Rs.19,57,32,920/- as the net amount of tax payable by the 
assessee in terms of his order dated December 19, 2011 by 
working out as hereunder: . 
· 
Income Returned by the assesee 
Rs. Nil 
(After claiming deduction u/s SOP) 
Add: Disallowance u/s 68 as 
RsJS,53, 72,794/, 
discussed in para no.2, 2.1 and 2.2 
.. 
above 
Add: Disallowance of deduction 
· Rs.4,26,37,Sl7/-
claimed u/s SOP 
Total assessed income 
Rs.42,S0,09,SSO/-
Tax tl1ere on 
(as 
per 
computation 
Form enclosed). 
Tax payable 
Rs.19,57,32,920/-
F 
6. It may be pointed out that in the appeal before Commissioner 
G 
oflncorne Tax (Appeals) {CIT(A)}, the order of the Assessing Officer 
making disallowance under Section 6S of the Act was reversed and that 
addition was deleted. Therefore, we are not concerned with that
aspect 
of the mater which has attained finality. 
7. Insofar as disallowance of deduction claimed under Section 
80P of the Act is concerned, the CIT(A) rejected the claim for deduction 
thereby upholding the order of the Assessing Officer. While doing so, 
the CIT(A) followed the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 
(!TAT) in the case of the appellant itself in respect of Assessment Years 
2007-0S and 200S-09. CIT(A) quoted the following tliscussion from the 
H said order of the !TAT:
-
THE CITIZEN CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD. v. ASST. COMMNR. . 369 
· OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-9(1), HYDERABAD [A. K. SIKRI, J.] 
· _"22 .. For Assessment Year 2007-08 and 2008-09, we have to 
A 
consider the amendment brought out to the section with effect 
from 1 A2007 by Finance Act, 2006 whereby section 80P( 4) was 
inserted. The.amendment clearly barred all the cooperative banks 
other than primary agricultural credit society or a primary 
· cooperative agricultural and rural development banks from claiming 
B 
exemption under the section. The primary activity of the· society 
·is to provide banking facilities to its members. The Society is 
dealing like a bank while accepting deposits from its members. 
This issue was examined by the ITAT in the assessee's own case 
while deleting the penalty u/s. 27ID and 27IE. The ITAl;held as 
under: 
C 
. · "If the carrying on baking b;1siness is not approved by the RBI 
or the assessee is not having requisite license to carry out the 
banking business, the authorities could have taken action against 
the society or stop the society activity. Once the assessec is 
· allowed to carry on the banking business, then the·assessee is 
D 
bound by the relevant provisions of the Banking Regulations 
·Act. The bank for all its banking activities is strictly governed 
· by the Banking Regulations Act, 1949." 
23. The Society is carrying on the banking business and for all 
practical purpose it acts like a co-op bank. The ITAT observed 
E 
that· the
society is governed by the Banking Regulations Act. 
Therefore, the Society being ·a co-op bank providing banking 
facilities to members is not eligible to claim the deduction u/s. 
80P(2)(i)(a) after the introduction of sub-section ( 4) to Section 
80P. 
24. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that the society is 
not eligible to claim deduction u/s. 80P(2)(a){i). Therefore, we 
are of the opinion that the assessee is not entitled for deduction u/ 
s. 80P(2)(a)(i) for Assessment Year 2006-07; 2007-08 and 2008-
09 and allowed the ground raised by the Revenue and dismiss the 
F 
· ground taken by the assessee on this issue. 
G 
5.2 The facts in the present appeal being identical, respectfully 
following the decision of the ITAT irt_the assessee'.s own case for 
the pre<;eding years, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed on 
the issue of deduction u/s. 80P." 
H 
( 
\
370 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 9 S.C.R. 
A . 
8. Further appeal to the ITAT met the same fate as ITAT also 
referred to its aforesaid order and dismissed the appeal of the appellant. 
Undeterred, the appellant approached the High Court in the form of 
appeal under Section 260A of the Act. This appeal has been dismissed 
by the High Court with the observations that there is no illegality or 
B infirmity in the order passed by the ITAT. 
9. Referring to the provisions of Section SOP of the Act, Mr. V. 
Shekhar, ·learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant, made a 
passionate plea to the effect that the entire purport and objective to 
enact the said provision was to encourage and promote growth of co-
operative sector in the economic life of the country in pursuance of the 
C declared policy of the Government. This is so recognised by various 
judgments of this Court firmly laying down the rule that a provision for 
direction, exemption or reliefshould be interpreted liberally, reasonably 
and in favour of the assessee and it should be so constn~ed as to effectuate 
the object of the legislature and not to defeat it. He referred to the 
D objects for whi.ch the assessee society has been established and submitted 
that the principal object of the society is to promote interest .of all its 
members to attain their social· and economic betterment through self 
help and mutual aid in accordance with the co-operative principles and 
keeping in view the same the assessee
society can engage in certain 
specified forms of business stipulated in the objective clause of the society. 
E The purpose, therefore, was to promote the interest of its members and, 
therefore, it cannot be said that primary object of the assessee is 
transaction of banking business. 
10. The learned senior counsel drew the attention of the Court to 
Section S(b) of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, which defines 'banking 
F business' as under: 
G 
H 
"(b) "banking" means the accepting, for the purpose of lending or 
investment, of deposits of money from the public, repayable on 
demand or otherwise, and withdrawable by cheque, draft, order 
or otherwise." 
11. Predicated on the aforesaid definition, he submitted that banking 
business means accepting for the purpose of lending or investment of 
deposits of money from the public repayable on demand or otherwise 
which is withdrawable by cheque, draft, order or otherwise. According 
to him, the assesseewas not accepting any money from the public, except
THE CITIZEN CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD. v. ASST. COMMNR. 
371 
OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE~9(1 ), HYDERABAD [A. K. SIKRI, J.] 
its members. Therefore, it was totally wrong on the part of the authorities A 
below to come to a conclusion that assessee wa~ doing banking business 
as stipulated in the Banking Regulation Act. It was also argued that in 
any case. the asscssee was not authorised and competent to carry on 
· any banking business without possessing a licence from the Reserve . 
Bank of India. He, thus, sought to draw the distinction between a co- . B 
operative bank and a co-operative society in the following manner: 
. 
CO-OPERATIVE BANK 
CO-OPERATIVE 
SOC'IETY 
• 
Nature of 
l. As defined in section 6 
1. As per bye laws of the 
business 
of Banking Regulation 
coopemtive society. 
Act. 
c 
2. Society is bound by · 
2. Banks are bound to 
rnles issued by Reserve 
follow the rules, 
Bank oflndia and 
regulations and directions 
regulations as specified 
· by {RBI), if any . 
D 
aoolicable. 
Inspection RBI has the .power to 
Registrar bas the power 
inspect accounts and 
to inspect accounts and 
overal I functioning of'tbe 
overall fum;tioning of 
. 
bank. 
rhe bank. 
PartV 
Part V of the Banking 
Part VoftheBailking 
E 
RegulationAct is 
Regulation Actis. not 
applicable to cooperative 
applicable to cooperative 
banks. 
societies. 
Use of 
The word 'bank', · 
The word .'bank', 
words 
'banker', 'banking' can · 
'banker', 'banking' · 
be used by a cooperative 
cannot be
Wied by a 
I bank. 
· coopemtive societY. 
It was also pointed outthat even Central Board of Direct Taxes -
CBDT - vide circular No. 133/2007 dated 9.5.2007 had clarified that 
Section 80P(4) of the Act provides that deduction shall not allowable to 
any Co-operative Bank other than Agricultural Credit Society or Primary G 
· Co-operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank. Submission was 
that since the assessee does not fall within the meaning of Co-operative 
Bank as defined in Part-V of the Banking Regulation Act, 194,9 and · 
Section 80P(4) will not, therefore, apply to the as.sessee~ 
' · 
H
372 
A 
B 
c 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017) 9 S.C.R. 
12. Continuing with the aforesaid line of argument. Mr. Shekhar 
further submitted that courts below ought to have appreciated that 
purpose of exemption under Section 80P is to provide employment of as 
much capital as possible for financing and extending the scope offundings 
etc. The true test for applying deduction under Section 80P of the Act is 
whether income earned is attributable to the utilisation of circulating 
capital.of the cooperative society engaged in the activity of business of 
banking. Once the assessee had earned income from the loans advanced 
to various members, the income so related to the banking activities is 
liable for exemption under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. He submitted 
that this interpretation is supported by various decisions of this Comi. 
Forth is purpose, he reforred to the decision of this Court in Commissioner 
of Income Tax, Bangalore v. Bangalore Distt. Coop. Central Bank 
Ltd. 1 wherein it was held that interest on Government securities and 
dividends earned by a Co-operative Society engaged in banking business 
is eligible for deduction under Section 80P of the Act. though said income 
D .was not earned from the credit facility provided to its members. Also, in 
Commissio11er of /11co111e Tax, Jalamllmr v. Nawa11s/w/1t1r Ce11tral 
Cooperative Bank Limite<f- this Court held that a Co-operative Society 
carrying a business of banking would be entitled for deduction under
Section 80P of the Act. Plea of the appellant was that ifthe intention of 
E 
F 
legislature was not to grant deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) to the 
cooperative societies carrying on the business of providing credit facilities 
to its members, said provision would have been deleted from the Statute. 
According to the learned senior counsel, the new proviso to Section 
80P(4) which was· brol!ght onto Statute Book is applicable only to 
cooperative banks and not to credit cooperative societies. The intention 
of the legislature in bringing the cooperative banks into the taxation 
structure was mainly to bring them on par with commercial banks. 
13. Taking aid of the principle of mutuality. it was submitted that 
the assessee is a mutual concern. Income derived by it from its operations 
is distributed among members. The members are entitled to participate 
in the surplus, thereby creating an identity. Facilities are provided only 
G to members of the society, who provide funds to it and their identity with 
the funds and their participation in the surplus arising from the said fond 
is unmistakably found and thus principles of mutuality will apply. In 
order to apply principle of mutuality, there must be complete identity 
; (1998) 6 sec 129 
H 
2 <2012) 13 sec 788
. 
. 
. 
THE CITIZEN CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD. v. ASST. COMMNR. 
373 
~F INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-9(1), HYDERABAD [A. K. SIKRI, JJ .. 
between contributors and participators and requirement of law bring .A 
that contributors of the common fund and participators in the surplus 
· must be an identical body. What is essential is that members of the 
·assessee as a class must be able to participate in the. surplus. · It is·· 
· immaterial whether surplusis paid back tci the members or is putto 
reserve with the society for development and for providing better B 
amenities to the members. There is.complete identity between the 
contributors and the participators of the assessee. 
· 
14. On the basis of the aforesaid arguments, Mr. Shekhar pleaded 
that the appellant be held entitled to the benefit of Section SOP of the 
Act. 
.15. In reply, Mr. Radhakrishnan, learned senior"counsel appearing 
for the Revenue, submitted that the findings arrived at by the authorities 
below to the effect that the activity/business of the appellant, in essence, 
c 
was that of a co-operative ·bank was based on the material on record 
and needed no interference. In this behalf he not only relied upon the 
findings of the Tribunal as· per the discussion contained therein, but also D 
submitted that these arc findings of fact. The Assessing Officer 
scrutinised the bye-laws of the appellants and in particular those bye~ 
laws which deal with the liability of membership etc. as well as provisions 
of
Mutually Aided Co-operative Societies Act, 1995 (MA CSA) under 
whi'ch the appellant is registered. The Assessing Officer found that the 
Act does not accept a person to be member of more than one co-operative 
for the same services. Moreover, Section 19 ofMACSA does not accept 
every co-operative to be a panacea for all problems facing an entire 
population in an area and leaves it to the members to decide how big 
they wish to grow and how much they can handle. After analysing 
. these provisions, following discussion ensued in the order passed by the 
Assessing Officer: 
"As per the above provisions governing the conductof the 
assessee, the assessee cannot admit nominal members and deal 
with them. The main activities of the assessee are in vio.laticin of 
E 
F 
. the above provisions, as seen under: 
G 
.. (i) As per the information furnished, it was found that the assessee. 
caters to two distinct categories of people. · 
·· 
(ii) The first category is that of resident members or ordinary 
members ... 
H
374 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2017] 9 S.C.R. 
A 
(iii) The second category is that of nominal members, who make 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
deposits with the assessee for the purpose of obtaining loans 
etc. 
(iv) This category of persons is neither members nor nominal/ 
associate members. 
(v) As noticed, the assessee accepts deposits mostly from the 
second category these deposits are mostly kept in FDs. 
(vi) With banks to earn maximum returns, a portion of these deposits 
are utilized to advance gold loans etc. to members of the first 
category. 
(vii)It is nqtice.d that the assessee has fixed deposits of 
Rs.541699504.39 of Rs. As on 31.3 .2007. 
Therefore, the fixed deposits in banks are mostly out of 
funds received as deposits from the second category of 
persons referred above. 
(viii) As a class, the depositors and borrowers are quite distinct 
and the activity is finance business and cannot be termed as 
cooperative activity. 
(ix) The assessee is also engaged in the activity of granting loans 
to general public etc. which has nothing to do with cooperation 
amongst members. It is plain business and any willing buyer 
can utilize the services of the assessee. 
(x) As understood, the assesse has not obtained any approval 
from the Registrar of Societies either to accept deposits from 
nominal members (who are actually non-members as the 
provisions of law referred above) as well as for conducting 
the business of sale of stamps etc. 
(xi) Therefore, both in form and
substance, the activity is in violation 
of the Cooperative Societies Act and Cooperative Society 
Rules. 
(xii) Apart from the above, a cooperative credit society is not 
entitled for deduction u/s 80P(2)(a){i) on the income from 
investment of surplus funds as per decision ofIT at Hyderabad 
Bench in ITA No. 1141/Hyd/2007 in the case of SBI Staff 
Mutually Aided Cooperative Society Ltd."
' 
.. 
. 
. 
. 
' 
. THE CITIZEN CO~OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD. v .. ASST. COMMNR. 
375 
OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-9(1), HYDERABAD [A. K. SIKRI, J.] . 
16. He submitted thatthere was a clear finding of the Assessing. A 
· Officer; which was consistently approved by the higher authorities as 
well, that provisions of Section SOP(2)(i)(a) were grossly violated asfae 
appellant Society was found not dealing with its members only but also 
with general public as well. ~On that basis, further submission of Mr. 
Radhakrishnim was th.at the principle of mutuality was missing in this 
case, which aspect was also discussed in detail PY the Assessing Officer. 
B 
He, thus, contended that in view of the aforesaid findings, no case for 
interference was made out by the appellant. 
17. We have considered the submissions of the cotins~I for the . · 
parties with reference to the record of this case. 
l S. We may mention at the outset that there cannot be any dispute · 
to the proposition that Section SOP of the Act is a benevolent provision 
which is enacted by the Parliament in order to encourage and promote 
growth of co-operative sector in the economic life of the country. lt , 
c 
· was. done pursuant to· declared policy of the Government. Therefore, · 
such a provision has to be read liberally, reasonably and infavour of the D 
assesscc (Sec...: BajajTe1npo Li111ited, Bo111bay ~. Co111111issioner of 
Income Tax, Bombay City~III, Bombay3). It is also trite that suc.h a 
provision has to be
construed as to effectuate the object of the Legislature 
and not to defeat it (See - Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay & 
Ors. v. Mahindra and Mahindra Limited & Ors. 4). Therefore, it 
E 
hardly needs to be emphasised that all those co-operative societies which 
fall within the purview of Section SOP of the Act are entitled to deduction 
in respect of any income referred to in sub-section (2) thereof. Clause . · 
(a) of sub-section (2) gives exemption of whole of the amount of profits 
and gains of business attributable to anyone or more of such .activities 
which arc mentioned in sub-.scction (2). . 
· 
19 .. Since we arc .concerned here with sub~section {i) of clause 
F 
· (a) of sub-section (2), it recognises two kirids of <;o-Operatlve societies, 
namely: (i) those carrying on the business of banking arid; (ii) tho.se · 
providing credit facilities.to its members .. 
G 
20. In the case ofKerala State Cooperative Marketing 
Federation Limited & Ors. v. Commissioner of Income. Tax5, this 
' (1992) 3 sec 78 
'(1983) 4 sec 392 c. 
'< 1998) s sec 48 
H
376 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 9 S.C.R. 
A Comt, while dealing with classes of societies covered by Section SOP of 
theAct, held as follows: 
B 
"6. The classes of societies covered by Section SO-P of the Act 
are as follows: 
~a) Engaged in business of banking and providing credit facilities 
to its members; 
xx 
xx 
xx 
7. We may notice that the provision is introduced with a view 
to encouraging and promoting growth of cooperative sector in 
c 
the economic life of the country and in pursuance of the 
declared policy of the Government. The correct way of reading 
the different heads of exemption enumerated in the section 
would be to treat each as a separate and distinct head of 
exemption. Whenever a question arises as to whether any 
particular. category of an income of a cooperative society is 
D 
exempt from tax what has to be seen is whether income fell 
within any of the several heads of exemption. If it fell within 
any one head of exemption, it would be free from tax 
notwithstanding that the conditions of another head of exemption 
· are not satisfied and such income is not free from tax under 
E 
that head of exemption ... " 
F 
G 
- 21. In the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Punjab State 
Co-operative Bank Ltd. 6, while dealing with an identical issue, the High 
Court of Punjab and Haryana held as follows: 
"S. The provisions of section SOP were introduced with a view to 
encouraging and promoting the growth of the co-operative sector 
in the economic
life of the country and in pursuance of the declared 
policy of the Government. The different heads of exemption 
enumerated in the section are separate and distinct heads of 
exemption and are to be treated as such. Whenever a question 
arises as tci \vhether any particular category of an income of a 
co-operative society is exempt from tax, then it has to be seen 
whether such income fell within any of the several heads of 
exemption. Ifit fell within any one head ofexemption, .... It means 
that a co-operative society engaged in carrying on the bu~iness of 
6(20ll8) 300 ITR 24 (Punjab & Haryana H.C.) 
H
. 
. 
THE CITIZEN CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETYLTD. v. ASST. COMMNR, 
377 
OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-9(1), HYDERABAD [A. K. SIKRI, J.] 
. 
. 
·.banking and a co-operative society providing credit facilities to its 
A 
members will be entitled for exemption under this sub:dause. The 
· carrying on the business of banking by a cooperative society or • · 
providing credit facilities to its members are two different types 
···of activities which are covered w1der this sub-clause. 
xx. 
xx 
.B 
· 13. So, in our view, if the income of a society is falling within any 
one head of exemption, i(has to be exempted from tax 
notwithstanding that the condition of other heads cif exemption 
arc nof-satisfied. A reading of the provisions of section SOP of the 
Act would indicate the manner in which the exemption Wlder the c 
said provisions is sought to be extended. Wheneverthe Legislature 
wanted to restrict the exemption to a primary co-operative society, 
it was so made clear as is evident from clause (f) ~ith reference 
to a milk co-operative society that a primary society engaged. in 
supplying milk is entitled to such exemption while denying the 
same to a federal milk co-operative society." 
D 
. 
. 
22. The aforesaid judgment of the }ligh Court correctly analyses 
the provisions of Section SOP of the Act and it is in tune with the judgment 
of this Courtin Kera/a State Cooperative Marketing Federation 
Limited (supra).. 
· 
· 
E 
23. With the insertion of sub-section (4) by the FinanccAct,
2006, 
which is in the nature of a proviso to the aforesaid provision. it is. made 
clear that such a deduction shall not be admissible to a co-operative 
bank. However, if it is a primary agriculture credit society or a primary 
co-operative agriculture and niral development bank, the deduction would 
still be provided. Thus, co-operative banks are now specificallyexduded .. F 
from the ambit of Section SOP of theAct. 
24. Undoubtedly, if one has to go by .the aforesaid definition of 
'co-operative bank', the appellant ddcs not get covered thereby. It is 
also a matte~ of cominon knowledge that in ~rder to do the busiiiess ofa 
co-operative bank, it is imperative to have a licence from the Reserve 
G 
Bank oflndia, which the appellant does not possess. Not only this, as 
. noticed above, the Reserve Bank of India has itself clarified that the 
business of the appellant docs not amount to that of a .co-opcn1ti ve bank: 
The appellant, therefore, would not come within the n1ischief of sub- . 
section (4) of Section SOP. 
H
378 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
. [2017] 9 S.C.R. 
A 
25. So far so good. However, it is significantto point out that the 
B 
main reason for disentitling the appellant from getting the deduction 
provided under Section SOP of the Act is not sub-section (4) thereof. 
What has been noticed. by the Assessing Officer, after discussing in 
detail the activities of the appellant, is that the activities of the appellant 
are in violations of the provisions of the MAC SA under which it is formed. 
It is pointed out by the Assessing Officer that the assessee is catering to 
t\vo distinct categories of people. The first category is that of resident 
members or ordinary members. There may not be any difficulty as far 
as this category is concerned. However, the assessee had carved out 
another category of 'nominal members'. These are those members 
C who are making deposits with the assessee for the purpose of obtaining 
loans, etc. and, in fact, they are not members in real sense. Most of the 
business of the appellant was with this second category of persons who 
have been giving deposits which are kept in Fixed Deposits with a motive 
to earn maximum returns. A portion of these deposits is utilised to advance 
0 
gold loans, etc. to the members of the first category. It is found, as a 
matter of fact, that he depositors and borrowers are quiet distinct. In 
reality, such activity of the appellant is that of finance business and cannot 
be termed as co-operative society. It is also
found that the appellant is 
engaged in the activity of granting loans to general public as well. All 
this is done without any approval from the Registrar of the Societies. 
E With indulgence in such kind of activity by the appellant, it is remarked 
by the Assessing Officer that the activity of the appellant is in violation 
of the Co-operative Societies Act. Moreover. it is a co-operative credit 
society which is not entitled to deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of 
the Act. 
F 
G 
H 
26. It is in this background, a specific finding is also rendered that 
the principle of mutuality is missing in the instant case. Though there is 
a detailed discussion in this behalf in the order of the Assessing Officer, · 
our purpose would be served by taking note of the following portion of 
the discussion: 
"As various courts have observed that the following three 
conditions must exist before an activity could be brought under 
the concept of mutuality; 
that no person can earn from him; 
that there a profit motivation; 
and that there is no sharing of profit.
THE CITIZEN CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD. v. ASST.COMMNR 
379 
OF.INCOME TAX; CIRCLE-9(1), HYDERABAD(A. K. SIKRI, J.J 
It is noticed that the fund investedwith bank which are not member A 
ofassociation welfare fund, and the interest has }?een earned on 
such investment for example, ING Mut.ual F.und [as said by the 
MD vide his statement dated 20.12.2010). [Though. the bank 
formed the third party vis-a-vis the assessee entitled between 
·contributor and recipient is lost in such case. The other ingredients B 
of mutuality are also found to be missing as discussed in further 
paragraphs]. 
. 
. 
. 
. In the present case both the parties to the transaction are the 
contributors towards surplus, however, there arc no participators· 
in the surpluses. There is no common consent of whatsoever for 
participators as their identity is not established. Hence, the assessee 
C 
fails to satisfy the test of mutuality at the time of making the 
payments the number in referred as members may not be the 
member of the society as such theAOP body by the society is not 
covered by concept of mutuality at alL" 
27. These are the findings of fact whi.ch have remained unshaken D 
till the stage of the High Court. Once we keep the aforesaid aspects in 
mind, the conclusion is obvious, namely, the appellant cannot be treated 
as a co-operative society meant only for its members and providing credit 
facilities to its members. We are afraid such a society 'cannot claim the 
benefit of Section 80P of
the Act. 
E 
28. This appeal, therefore, fails and is hereby dismissed with costs; 
Divya Pandey 
Appeal dismissed.