Introduction
In a significant judgment titled Andhra Pradesh Advocates Welfare Fund v. Income-tax Officer[i], the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad (‘ITAT’), held that an Advocates Welfare Fund that does not satisfy the principle of mutuality will not be eligible to claim an exemption under the Income-tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’) on the ground of mutuality.
Brief Facts
The Andhra Pradesh Advocates Welfare Fund (‘Assessee’), formed under the Andhra Pradesh Advocates’ Welfare Fund Act, 1987, had certain sources of revenue such as life membership fee, nomination fee, certificate fee, interest on savings bank, interest on fixed deposit, proceeds from the sale of welfare fund stamps, amongst certain other miscellaneous receipts and expenditures. Against the aforementioned receipts, the Assessee had received an approximate total of Rs. 6.64 crores.
The Assessee filed its income tax return, declaring its income to be nil and claiming exemption under mutuality. Further, the assessee claimed its status as a local authority, based on which the Assessee claimed a further deduction of approximately Rs. 6.17 crores under the heads of death benefits, retirement benefits, funeral expenses, etc.
Upon scrutiny, the assessing officer (‘AO’) disallowed the exemption on the grounds of breach of mutuality, as the Act created two classes of contributors, i.e., members and non-members, where only the members were entitled to certain benefits.
On appeal, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) (‘CIT(A)’) upheld the order passed by AO, compelling the Assessee to file the present appeal before ITAT.
Issues
Whether the assessee is entitled to exemption from tax on the ground of mutuality?
Whether the statutory provision under the Act allowing benefits only to members of the Fund while extracting contributions from non-members could invoke the principle of mutuality?
Held
The ITAT upheld CIT(A)'s decision and reiterated that the Assessee cannot be granted an exemption on grounds of mutuality. While thoroughly examining the doctrine of mutuality and navigating the established jurisprudence, the ITAT held that exemptions on the grounds of mutuality can only be claimed if contributors and participants have a complete and strict identity. Any deviation from such identical identity transforms the nature of the transaction from mutual to commercial.
The ITAT, while relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Yum! Restaurants (Marketing) Private Limited v. CIT[ii], CIT, Bihar v. Bankipur Club Ltd.[iii], and Bangalore Club v. CIT[iv] recapitulated the three conditions for mutuality:
i. The identity of contributors and recipients must be the same, i.e., the contributors to the fund and the recipients from the fund must be the same.
ii. The entity should function as a mere instrument for the convenience of its members, adhering to their mandate.
iii. It must be impossible for contributors to derive profits from their contributions.
The ITAT observed that there was no mutuality in the transactions being undertaken by the Assessee. While the Act prescribed statutory requirements for both member and non-member Advocates to affix welfare stamps in cases, non-members were not entitled to receive reciprocal benefits. Thus, there is no mutuality in such transactions. Further, the act of the Assessee receiving interest against such bank deposits was purely a commercial transaction and thus liable to be taxed.
Our Analysis
Through its judgment, the ITAT has drawn a clear distinction between transactions eligible for exemption under the doctrine of mutuality and other transactions of a commercial nature. After thoroughly considering Supreme Court decisions, the ITAT has adopted a strict approach to interpreting the principle of mutuality. This decision clarifies the taxation of Advocate Welfare Funds. It is expected to influence tax authorities in other states, potentially leading to further litigation on this issue before appellate forums.
End Notes
[i] [2024] 165 taxmann.com 372 (Hyderabad – Trib.).
[ii] [2020] 116 taxmann.com 374/271.
[iii] (1997) 5 SCC 394.
[iv] (2013) 5 SCC 509.
Authored by Aditya Gupta, Advocate at Metalegal Advocates. The views expressed are personal and do not constitute legal opinions.
Comments