V. Ramasubramanian, J.

1. All these appeals are by the branch offices of one assessee, namely, The Coimbatore District Central Co-operative Bank Limited, filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee has come up with the above appeals, raising the following substantial question of law:-

"Whether a co-operative society, carrying on banking business with the approval of the Reserve Bank of India, is liable to deduct tax under Section 194A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on the interest paid to its members?"

2. We are of the considered view that in addition to the above substantial question of law, one more substantial question of law also arises for consideration, namely,

"Whether there is any distinction between a co-operative bank and a co-operative society carrying on banking business and if so, under which category the appellant would fall?"

3. Heard Mr. K. Ravi, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. J. Narayanasamy, learned senior standing counsel for the respondent.

Brief Facts:-

4. The facts in brief out of which the above appeals arise are as follows:-

"(a) The appellant is registered as a co-operative society, in terms of the provisions of the Tamil Nadu co-operative Societies Act, 1983. The appellant is carrying on the business of banking with 30 branches including the head office in the district of Coimbatore.

(b) A survey was conducted in the business premises of the appellant on 14.11.2013, followed by a hearing in which the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, TDS Circle, Coimbatore called for branch-wise details of deposits attracting TDS provisions for the financial years 2007-08 to 2013-14. The appellant/assessee was asked to submit the details by 16.12.2013.

(c) Since the appellant did not furnish the details, the assessing officer, TDS circle issued summons under Section 131(1A) of the Act. It was followed by separate pro-rata demands. Thereafter the Income Tax Officer, TDS, Coimbatore passed orders under Section 201(1) and 201(1A). Orders in respect of each assessment year were passed on the same date, but individually. By the said orders, the Income Tax Officer directed the appellant to pay the amount quantified in each of those years.

(d) The appellant filed statutory appeals before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals-II), Coimbatore. The appeals were partly allowed by separate orders. By those orders, the appellate Commissioner held that the demand made by the Income Tax Officer even in respect of the deposits which did not exceed Rs. 10,000/- was not proper.

(e) Aggrieved by the disallowed portion of their appeals, the appellant filed second appeals before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal, by common orders passed in a batch of cases, partly allowed the appeals, setting aside the orders of the lower authorities, remanding the matter back to the assessing officer for the limited purpose of verifying the nature of the deposits on which interest was paid. In other words, the Tribunal found that there was no segregation of time deposits and recurring deposits by the assessing officer. This segregation was necessary in view of the fact that the interest paid on time deposits attracts liability to deduct tax at source, if it exceeds Rs. 10,000/- and the interest paid on recurring deposits and savings bank account, does not attract the liability to deduct tax at source.

(f) Not satisfied with the common orders passed by the Tribunal, in the manner aforesaid, the assessee has come up with these appeals contending that even in respect of time deposits, irrespective of the quantum of interest paid, the co-operative societies like the appellant are not obliged to deduct tax at source for the assessment years in question."

Relevant Statutory provisions:-

5. In order to examine the substantial questions of law that have arisen for our consideration, it may be necessary to take note of the relevant statutory provisions at first.

6. Sub-section (1) of Section 194A makes it obligatory for