DOREGULING PRIMARY AGRICULTURE COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED,MUNDGOD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-1, , SIRSI

The appeal has been filed by the assessee before this Tribunal with a delay of 73 days and the assessee had submitted the reasons in the delay condonation affidavit and we have perused the reasons and satisfied that the assessee has a valid reason for not presenting the appeal before this Tribunal within the period of limitation. We therefore condone the said delay of 73 days in filing the appeal before this Tribunal.

Now we will take up the main appeal filed by the assessee for adjudication.

“17. In the present case, assessee is subject to rules laid down by cooperative society Act and the assessee has been carrying out banking operation which are under audit of various authorities and therefore the assessee could not be put at par with the other cases of other concerns since the assessee have no control in respect of the amounts received from the customers in the form of deposits. The customer usually go to the bank to make deposits with an intention of earning interest and the assessee is to maintain the same and the depositor operate those accounts and the deposits repayable on expiry of specific period. There is no dispute in these assessment years that the assessee has been carrying on the banking transactions which may be with or without approval of the Reserve Bank of India. If the carrying on the operations of the banking activities is not at all approved by the Reserve Bank of India or the assessee is having no requisite licence from the authorities, the concerned authorities could have stopped the same or taken action against the assessee. Once the assessee is permitted to carry on the banking activities, then the assessee is bound by the relevant provisions of the Banking Regulations Act. The bank, for all its banking activities is strictly governed by the Banking Regulation Act 1949. 'Banking' is described as accepting, for the purpose of lending or investment of money, due from the public repayable on demand or otherwise and withdrawal by cheque, draft order or otherwise. The deposits held by the assessee are its stock in trade. The deposits and loans are just like buying and selling of goods/products. The amounts in account maintained by the assessee bank were not in the control of the assessee. In the sense that the bank may be required to pay at any point of time. In case of banks, like present assessee, the customer identity required to be taken with proper introduction, photographs and address etc. This is so because, any person from general public can come and open a deposit account with the bank. The acceptance of deposit by this assessee cannot be equated with other kind of assessees. In other cases, normally, deposits are accepted from the people connected with are known to the depositees. It is in accordance with the terms of section 131 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The customer introduction had to be been taken to avoid any kind of fraud. The assessee like present is not obliged to question the source of deposit made by its customers. Also, the customer can keep the deposit for a period which is according to their convenience . The amount has to be repaid by the assessee to its customer immediately on demand. These features distinguish the case of the assessee from other ordinary assessees. Therefore, the provisions of section 271D/271E to be viewed in the background of these aspects. Further, the assessee is subject to periodical inspects and audits by various statutory authorities and in case of any default assessee is liable for having penalty besides cancellation of its licence. This is not the case with other assessees. Further, the assessee has to maintain confidentiality in respect of the information collected by it from its customers, such information is not to be divulged to outsiders. There is no such obligation with other assessee. In spite of this, the assessee has furnished the information as available with it. Now if the address of the customers of the assessee found to be incomplete, this cannot form the basis for levying the penalty. There is no finding by the lower authorities that the assessee violated any guidelines issued by the Regulatory authorities. Usually, the bank was not required to go for detailed verification of addresses, whereabouts of its customers. There is no absolute obligation to assessee to make enquiries about the proposed customer so as to examine the genuineness/sources of the deposits. Bank usually rely in the introduction of any old customer and that if the bank bona fide acted on the reference of a customer, it can avail of the protection under section 131 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. Further, the bank is accepting the deposits and there is no involving of any risk to the bank, even the rule of proper introduction did not operate strictly. It is to be noted that the assessee while doing the business in ordinary course, if it puts various conditions, the expected business may not be able to achieve. Therefore, it cannot be said that assessee did commit any infringement or it is incorrect to say that there was any deliberate attempt on the part of the assessee to accommodate tax dodgers. The deposits accepted and repaid by the assessee were part of its Banking activities and the depositors were its Members. The deposits received by the assessee, which was carrying on the banking business, were not in the nature of taking of any loan or deposits for the purpose of funding its project as a source of investment, that rather, it was in the business of accepting deposits that in view of the nature of such business, the scrutiny of the deposits could not be the same as in the case of assessee making entries of deposits on account of loan etc. The authority vested with the power to impose penalty as a discretionary power not to levy the penalty. It is all very well to paint justice blind, but she does better without a bandage round the eyes. She should be blind indeed to favour or prejudice, but clear to see which way lies the truth and the less dust there is about the better. We made attempt to examine the truth. We found that there is no addition on account of these impugned deposits in the return of income it means that deposits are genuine. Veracity of creditor not doubted by the Revenue. Assessing Officer did accept the deposit as genuine. The breach of provisions of sections 269SS/269T from a bona fide belief. Ex facie it is a venial breach. The law takes no notice of trivialities. Cash payments and receipts made because of business exigencies. The mere violation of a statutory obligation is not liable for any penalty more so, undisputedly the penal action is quasi criminal nature. The income of the assessee is exempt under section 80P of the Act and more so, there is no establishment of deliberate and intentional violation of the provisions by the assessee, that too, in order to hide any income or to evade any payment of tax. Usually penalty will not be imposed unless the party concerned has acted deliberately in defiance of law or was guilty of conduct contumacious or dishonest, or acted in conscious disregard of its obligation and that penalty will also not be imposed merely because it is lawful to do so. The imposition of penalty for failure to perform statutory obligation is only a discretionary power of the authority exercising judicial functions on consideration of all the relevant circumstances. If the assessee acted on genuine belief that penal provisions have no application to deposits and it applied only to other kind of assessees, then penalty could not be levied. As such, in present case, there exists reasonable cause in accepting the deposits in cash and paying by cash. Assessee may therefore be exonerated from the levy of penalty. The other contention of the assessee counsel is that the words 'any other person' in section 269SS or 269T does not denote the director of the assessee or members of the assessee society, when read with the legislative intent as reproduced in Board circular No. 387, dated 6-9-1984. The term 'any other person' in the context of introduction of section 269SS appears to means persons who are not very intimately or very closely connected with the assessee. In the present case the assessee accepted the deposits and repaid the same either to the members/directors or to their dependents children or their associated concerns or their relatives. Further, we have carefully pursued bye-law of the assessee society. As seen from the bye-law, it is working on the concept of mutuality. Where a number of persons coming together and contribute a common fund for financing of some venture or object and will in this respect have no dealing or relation with any outside body, then any transactions with those persons cannot be regarded in any sense as loan. There must be complete identity between the contributors and the participators. If these requirements are fulfilled it is immaterial what particular form the association takes. Trading between people associating together in this way does not give rise levy of penalty. Where the trade or activity is mutual, the fact that, as regards certain activities, certain members only of the association take advantage of facilities which it offers does not affect the mutuality of the enterprise. The contributor of the fund are entitled to participate in the surplus, thereby creating an identity between the participators and contributors and acceptance of deposits and repayment of the same is incidental to the attainment of the main object of the assessee society. The concept of mutuality is primarily based on the principle that one cannot make profit from himself . Thus, when the facilities are provided to only to members of the society, who provide the funds to the society and their identity with the funds and their participation in the surplus arising from the said fund is unmistakably found then the principles of mutuality will apply. The fact of the present case, are akin to the above position and all the ingredients necessary for holding the application of the concept of mutuality are satisfied because there is complete identity between the contributors and participators and the requirement of the law is that contributors of the common fund and the participators in the surplus must be an identical body. That does not mean that each member should contribute to the common fund that or that each member should participate in the surplus or get back from the surplus precisely what he has paid. What is required is that the members as a clause must be able to participate in the surplus. It is immaterial whether the surplus is paid back to the members in cash or is put to reserve with the society for his development and for providing better amenities to the member. In view of the transaction took place between the assessee and its member, the strict provisions of the section 269SS/269T cannot be applied. 17.1 Further, the Legislature was intending to curb the tax evasion in a 'search situation' and referred to confirmatory letters produced in such situations to counter 'cash found'. A statute is an edict of the legislature and the conventional way of interpreting or constituting a statute is to seek the intention of its maker. A statute is to be constitute according to the intent of them who make it. The legislature in a modern state is actuated with some policy to curb some evils or to some public benefits. A bare mechanical interpretation of the words without the application of a legitimate intent, devoid of any concept or purpose will reduce most of the remedial and beneficial legislation to futility. Keeping in view of the intent of the legislature behind the enacting sections 269SS/269T, it is clear that the loan or deposit brought in by the assessee was not to explain its unaccounted cash and, therefore the question of violating these provisions did not arise. The term 'various persons' and 'such persons' is to be understood only in relation to 'such situation' as the section itself was introduced to meet such situations only. Thus, the director or member of the assessee society is clearly not covered by the expression 'any other person' occurring in section 269SS. The transaction in question cannot be considered as 'loan' or 'deposit' so as to attract section 269SS or section 269T of the Act. The transactions can also be attributed various exigencies of business carried on by the assessee and thus constitutes a 'reasonable cause' as contemplated by section 273B. The expression 'reasonable cause' has to be considered pragmatically and as it is transactions are openly done, to meet the exigencies of business, it can be said to constitute 'reasonable cause'. The bona fide business of transaction cannot be considered for levying the penalty under section 271D or 271E. More so, the assessee has been carrying on the banking business and it is having bona fide belief that provision of section 269SS/269T is not applicable to the assessee case and same is coupled with genuineness of the transaction constitute a reasonable cause and in such case the default on the part of the assessee is merely of a technical or venial nature and no penalty be levied.

Order pronounced in the open court on 15th January, 2025.