IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Anita Sumanth, J.
S.N.299 Molasi Primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit Society Ltd. And ors. – Petitioners
Versus
The Income Tax Officer, Namakkal and ors. – Respondents
W.P.Nos. 17136, 17927, 18787, 21856, 24245, 24249, 24251, 24253, 24792, 25143, 25481, 25486, 25719, 25813 & 26343 of 2022 and WMP. Nos.16441, 16442, 16443, 17259, 17260, 18143, 18144, 18145, 20872, 20873, 23222, 23225, 23229, 23230, 23232, 23233, 23236, 23237, 23727, 23728, 24095, 24097, 24480, 24481, 24487, 24488, 24774, 24776, 24873, 24874, 25419 & 25420 of 2022
Decided On : 04-11-2022..
Income Tax Act - Deduction of Tax on Cash Withdrawal - Section 194 N
Fact of the Case:
The case involves Primary Agricultural Co-operative Credit Societies challenging Circulars issued by District Central Cooperative Banks regarding deduction of tax on cash withdrawals. The petitioners argue that no deduction should be made as they are intermediaries between the bank and agriculturists, and the withdrawals do not constitute their income. They also claim parity with Agricultural Produce Market Committee (APMC) traders who are permitted to withdraw cash without deduction of tax at source.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the challenge to the Circulars fails and dismissed the Writ Petitions on the ground of maintainability as well as merits.
Issues: The issues revolve around the applicability of Section 194N of the Income Tax Act to the withdrawals made by the petitioner societies, their status as intermediaries, and their entitlement to exemption from tax deduction.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the mandatory nature of Section 194N and the intention to discourage cash transactions. It also highlighted the avenue provided for seeking exemption from the application of Section 194N and the premature nature of submissions related to Section 80P and reliance on a specific judgment.
Final Decision: The Writ Petitions challenging the Circulars were dismissed, and no costs were awarded.
ORDER :
This batch of Writ Petitions has been filed by Primary Agricultural Co-operative Credit Societies (in short ‘Society/Societies’) and turns on the appreciation of a common set of facts as well as legal provisions.
2. All the petitioner societies challenge Circulars issued by the District Central Cooperative Banks, Salem, Kancheepuram and Kumbakonam, arrayed as R2 in all writ petitions (referred to as ‘Banks’) bearing Na.Ka.No.2416/95/Accts. dated 16.03.2021, Na.Ka.1545/2006-07/P.13 dated 29.03.2021 and Na.Ka.No.2727/2020-B3, dated 07.01.2022 respectively. The societies function for the purposes of advancing crop and fertilizer loans to agriculturalists and have accounts with R2 banks.
3. The impugned Circulars refer to the statutory mandate of Section 194 N of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘Act’) providing for deduction of tax on cash withdrawal. The provisions of Section 194 N coming under Chapter XVII dealing with ‘collection and recovery – deduction at source’ provides for deduction of an amount equal to 2% of any cash withdrawal made by persons from ;
(ii) a co-operative society engaged in carrying on the business of banking; or
(iii) a post office.
4. It is the case of the petitioners that there should be no deduction at all, that could be effected from the withdrawals made by them from the banks. The petitioner societies are intermediaries between the bank and agriculturists, who are beneficiaries of the withdrawals made by the petitioners.
5. In most instances, the amounts have been sanctioned by the State and the petitioner societies are mere conduits or facilitators. Thus, deduction of tax, in such a situation, would greatly prejudice the ultimate beneficiaries of the loans who are farmers and small traders.
6. That apart, the funds withdrawn by the petitioners for onward transmission to the farmers, even if construed to be the income of the petitioner societies together with other incomes earned by the societies, are entitled for deduction in terms of Section 80P of the Act. This would also support their stand that no tax is liable to be deducted at source from the withdrawals.
7. The petitioners additionally submit that, in the budget speech of the Hon’ble Finance Minister, while introducing Section 194N, the proposal for deduction of tax of cash withdrawals was restricted to business payments only. The avowed object was ‘to discourage the practice of making business payments in cash’ and it was proposed ‘to levy TDS of 2% of cash withdrawal exceeding one crore in an year from a bank account’. Thus, Section 194N must be held to be applicable only in respect of business payments and the present payments would not come within the ambit of Section 194N.
8. They also refer in their pleadings, to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi Vs. Eli Lilly and Co. (India) (P) Ltd., [178 Taxmann 505]. This judgment is to the effect that the purpose of provisions for tax deduction under Chapter XVIIB, is to see that any sum which is chargeable to tax under Section 4 of the Income Tax Act must be brought within the ambit of tax with the requisite deduction.
9. Thus, it is only in respect of amounts that constitute income in the hands of the payee that tax should be deducted. In the present case, the withdrawals do not constitute income of the petitioner and hence such liability would not arise.
10. They place great reliance upon a CBDT Notification bearing No.70 of 2019 dated 20.09.2019, whereunder commission agents or traders operating under the provisions of the Agricultural Produce Market Committee (APMC) have been permitted to withdraw cash in excess of one crore without deduction of tax at source, upon them establishing that such withdrawals were for the purpose of making payments to the farmers for purchas
The central legal point established is the mandatory nature of Section 194N for deduction of tax on cash withdrawals and the availability of an avenue for seeking exemption from its application.
Section 194N of the Income Tax Act mandates TDS on cash withdrawals exceeding Rs. 1 Crore, applicable to cooperative societies, promoting a cashless economy.
The central legal point established is the need for timely decision-making by the Ministry of Finance, Government of India and the CBDT on requests for exemption from tax provisions.
The legislature has the authority to regulate and amend tax exemption thresholds for cooperative entities. Such policy decisions are constitutional unless inherently perverse. Furthermore, parties wh....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.