1971 (9) TMI 59 - HC - Income Tax

Surplus of income over expenditure of a recreation club providing amenities to members on payments - Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the assessee-club is entitled to exemption from income-tax in respect of its income for the assessment year 1961-62 ? - Since the club has not been formed for the purpose of making profits by trading, it is not a trade association. The surplus of receipts over expenditure derived by the assessee-club does not go to any person in the capacity other than as contributor or consumer. Therefore, the assessee club is not a trade association nor is the excess a profit taxable as income from other sources - Surplus received by the assessee-club is not income. It is therefore, not taxable either under section 10 as business income or under section 12 as income from other sources.

Issues Involved:
1. Entitlement to income-tax exemption for the assessee-club.
2. Definition and applicability of mutual benefit society principles.
3. Taxability of surplus income under the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922.
4. Distinction between social clubs and trade associations.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Entitlement to Income-Tax Exemption for the Assessee-Club:
The primary issue was whether the assessee-club, Merchant Navy Club, Visakhapatnam, was entitled to exemption from income-tax for the assessment year 1961-62. The club provided amenities to its members, both paying and non-paying, and realized a surplus of Rs. 35,301 after meeting all expenditures. The Income-tax Officer initially taxed this surplus, arguing that the club's activities were profit-oriented and lacked mutuality. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner, however, accepted the club's contention of being a mutual benefit society and exempted the surplus from tax, a decision upheld by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal.

2. Definition and Applicability of Mutual Benefit Society Principles:
The principle of mutuality was central to the case. The court examined whether there was a complete identity between the contributors to the common fund and the participators in the surplus. The club's constitution allowed for both paying and non-paying members, with the latter also contributing to the common fund through payments for amenities. The court emphasized that mutuality requires that all contributors must be entitled to participate in the surplus and vice versa, as laid down in various precedents including Commissioner of Income-tax v. Kumbakonam Mutual Benefit Fund Ltd. and United Service Club v. Crown.

3. Taxability of Surplus Income Under the Indian Income-Tax Act, 1922:
The court reviewed whether the surplus income of the club could be considered taxable under section 10 (business income) or section 12 (income from other sources) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The court held that the surplus realized by the club was not a profit from business since the club's activities were not tainted with commerciality. The supplies made to members were not sales, as there was no element of transfer of property. The court relied on the principle that no person can trade with himself and make an assessable profit, reaffirming that the club's surplus was not taxable.

4. Distinction Between Social Clubs and Trade Associations:
The court distinguished between social clubs and trade associations. It held that the assessee-club was not a trade association as it was not formed for the purpose of making profits by trading. The surplus of receipts over expenditure did not go to any person in a capacity other than as a contributor or consumer. The court referenced cases such as Commissioners of Inland Revenue v. Eccentric Club Ltd. and Secunderabad Club v. Commissioner of Sales Tax to support the view that the club's activities were social and recreational, lacking any profit motive.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the surplus received by the assessee-club was not income and, therefore, not taxable either under section 10 as business income or under section 12 as income from other sources. The reference was answered in favor of the assessee-club, with the department directed to pay costs to the assessee.

← Previous Next →