Case: M/s. Bangalore Club Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax &amp; Another

The Bangalore Club (hereinafter referred to as thethe appellant herein, is an unincorporated Association of Persons, (AOP). In relation to the assessment years 1989-90, 1990-91, 1993-94, 1994-95, 1995- 96, 1996-97, 1997-98, 1998-99 and 1999-2000, the assessee sought an exemption from payment of income tax on the interest earned on the fixed deposits kept with certain banks, which were corporate members of the assessee, on the basis of doctrine of mutuality. However, tax was paid on the interest earned on fixed deposits kept with non-member banks.The assessing officer rejected theclaim, holding that there was a lack of identity between the contributors and the participators to the fund, and hence treated the amount received by it as interest as taxable business income. On appeal by the assessee, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-II, Bangaloreor short) reversed the view taken by the assessing officer, and held that the doctrine of mutuality clearly applied to thecase. On appeal by the revenue the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short, affirmed the view taken by the CIT (A), observing thus (ITA No.In the instant case, the funds of the club are given in the form of deposits for earning income from the corporate members, namely, the banks here and, therefore, the earning of interest is clearly had risen out of the concept of mutuality only. The decisions relied upon by the DR have nowhere touch (sic) upon the fact as to whether it was with corporate members or not. Apparently, they had dealt with the situation where the transactions of interest are from persons who are not the members of the club. During the argument, the DR had admitted that the assessee had shown interest from certain other banks as its income which also goes to show that wherever the concept of mutuality was absent, the assessee had offered the same asan application by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, the High Court entertained the appeal and framed the following two substantial questions of law for its adjudicationWhether, a sum of Rs. 7,87,648/- received by the assessee as interest from fixed deposit made by the assessee in four banks who are members in the assessee club amounted to its income and constituted a revenue receipt as per the provision of Income Tax Act.(2) Whether, the principle of mutuality can be made applicable to the fund deposited in the four banks who are also members of assessee club, especially when the fund is raised from contribution of several members including the four banks and the interest derived from it is utilized by several members of the assesseeboth the questions in favour of the revenue, the High CourtOn the facts of this case and in the light of the legal principles it is clear to us that what has been done by the club is nothing but what could have been done by a customer of a Bank . The principle of ‘no man can trade withis not available in respect of a nationalised bank holding a fixed deposit on behalf of its customer. The relationship is one of a banker and athe High Court reversed the decision of the Tribunal and restored the order of the assessing officer. Hence, this appeal by the assessee.

Court's reasoning:
it would be necessary to appreciate the general understanding of doctrine of mutuality. The principle relates to the notion that a person cannot make a profit from himself. An amount received from oneself is not regarded as income and is therefore not subject to tax; only the income which comes within the definition of Section 2(24) of the Act is subject to tax (income from business involving the doctrine of mutuality is denied exemption only in special cases covered under clause (vii) of Section 2 (24) of the Act). The concept of mutuality has been extended to defined groups of people who contribute to a common fund, controlled by the group, for a common benefit. Any amount surplus to that needed to pursue the common purpose is said to be simply an increase of the common fund and as such neither considered income nor taxable. Over time, groups which have been considered to have mutual income have included corporate bodies, clubs, friendly societies, credit unions, automobile associations, insurance companies and finance organizations. Mutuality is not a form of organization, even if the participants are often called members. Any organization can have mutual activities. A common feature of mutual organizations in general and of licensed clubs in particular, is that participants usually do not have property rights to their share in the common fund, nor can they sell their share. And when they cease to be members, they lose their right to participate without receiving a financial benefit from the surrender of their membership. A further feature of licensed clubs is that there are both membership fees and, where prices charged for club services are greater than their cost, additional contributions. It is these kinds of prices and/or additional contributions which constitute mutual income.8. The doctrine of mutuality finds its origin in common law. One of the earliest modern judicial statements of the mutuality principle is by Lord Watson in the House of Lords, in 1889, in Styles (Surveyor of Taxes) Vs. New York Life Insurance Co. [[1889] 2 TC 460] (hereinafter referred to as the. The appellant in that case was an incorporated company. The company issued life policies of two kinds, namely, participating and non- participating. The members of the mutual life insurance company were confined to the holders of the participating policies, and each year, the surplus of receipts over expenses and estimated liabilities was divided among them, either in the form of a reduction of future premiums or of a reversionary addition to the policies. There were no shares or shareholders in the ordinary sense of the term but each and every holder of a participating policy became ipso facto a member of the company and as such became entitled to a share in the assets and liable for a share in the losses. The company conducted a calculation of the probable death rate amongst the members and the probable expenses and liabilities; calls in the shape of premiums were made on the members accordingly. An account used to be taken annually and the greater part of the surplus of such premiums, over the expenditure referable to such policies, was returned to the members i.e. (holders of participating policies) and the balance was carried forward as a fund in hand to the credit of the general body of members. The question was whether the surplus returned to the members was liable to be assessed to income tax as profits or gains. The majority of the Law Lords answered the question in the negative. It may be noticed that in that case the members had associated themselves together for the purpose of insuring eachlife on the principle of mutual assurance, that is to say, they contributed annually to a common fund out of which payments were to be made, in the event of death, to the representatives of the deceased members. Those persons were alone the owners of the common fund and they alone were entitled to participate in the surplus. This surplus was obtained partly from the profits arising from non-participating policies and other business. It was held that that portion of the surplus which arose from the excess contributions of the holders of participating policies was not an assessable profit. It was therefore, held to be a case of mutual assurance. The individuals insured and those associated for the purpose of receiving their dividends and meeting other stipulated requisites under the policies were identical. It was held that that identity was not destroyed by the incorporation of the company. Lord Watson even went to the extent of saying that the company in that case did not carry on any business at all, which perhaps was stating the position a little too widely as pointed out by Viscount Cave in a later case; but, be that as it may, all the Noble Lords, who formed the majority, were of the view that what the members received were not profits but their respective shares of the excess amount contributed by themselves. They heldwhen a number of individuals agree to contribute funds for a common purpose ... and stipulate that their contributions, so far as not required for that purpose, shall be repaid to them. I cannot conceive why they should be regarded as traders, or why contributions returned to them should be regarded asposition of the assessee was no different from an ordinary bank except that it lent money and received deposits from its shareholders. This did not by itself make its income any less income from business. In our opinion, the ratio of the said decision is on all fours to the facts at hand. The interest earned by the assessee even from the member banks on the surplus funds deposited with them had the taint of commerciality, fatal to the principle of mutuality.32. We may add that the assessee is already availing the benefit of the doctrine of mutuality in respect of the surplus amount received as contributions or price for some of the facilities availed by its members, before it is deposited with the bank. This surplus amount was not treated as income; since it was the residue of the collections left behind with the club. A faç¡¤e of a club cannot be constructed over commercial transactions to avoid liability to tax. Such setups cannot be permitted to claim double benefit of mutuality. We feel that the present case is a clear instance of what this Court had cautioned against in Bankipur Club (supra), when itif the object of the assessee company claiming to be a "mutual concern" or "club", is to carry on a particular business and money is realised both from the members and from non- members, for the same consideration by giving the same or similar facilities to all alike in respect of the one and the same business carried on by it, the dealings as a whole disclose the same profit earning motive and are alike tainted with commerciality. In other words, the activity carried on by the assessee in such cases, claiming to be a "mutual concern" or Members club" is a trade or an adventure in the nature of trade and the transactions entered into with the members or non- members alike is a trade/business/transaction and the resultant surplus is certainly profit - income liable to tax. We should also state, that "at what point, does the relationship of mutuality end and that of trading begin" is a difficult and vexed question. A host of factors may have to be considered to arrive at a conclusion. "Whether or not the persons dealing with each other, is a "mutual club" or carrying on a trading activity or an adventure in the nature of trade" is largely a question ofour opinion, unlike the aforesaid surplus amount itself, which is exempt from tax under the doctrine of mutuality, the amount of interest earned by the assessee from the afore-noted four banks will not fall within the ambit of the mutuality principle and will therefore, be exigible to Income-Tax in the hands of the assessee-club.