The Katpadi Co-operative Township Limited, CHENNAI V. ACIT, Vellore

ITA 2036/CHNY/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8214 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-01-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 12-11-2015
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 05-10-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P RADHAKRISHNAN JCITD R
• Assessee Lawyers: R VIJAYARAGHAVAN
• Keywords: Retrospective amendment; Question of law; Non-deduction of tax
• Section: 147

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, CHENNAI ... , . , , BEFORE SHRI N.R.S.GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ I.T.A.NOS.2034 TO 2037 /MDS./2015 ( ' ' / ASSESSMENT YEARS :2008-09 TO 2011-12) THE KATPADI CO-OPERATIVE TOWNSHIP LTD., C 1538 GANDHI NAGAR, VELLORE 632 006. VS. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-I, VELLORE. PAN AABAC 0410 G ( / APPELLANT ) ( / RESPONDENT ) % & / APPELLANT BY : MR.R.VIJAYARAGHAVAN,ADVOCATE ()% & / RESPONDENT BY : MR.P.RADHAKRISHNAN,JCIT, D.R & - / DATE OF HEARING : 12.11.2015 & - /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 20.01.2016 / O R D E R PER A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THESE FOUR APPEALS ARE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, A GGRIEVED BY THE COMMON ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INC OME TAX(A)- 13, CHENNAI DATED 21.09.2015 IN ITA NO.213,214, 2 15 & ITA NOS.2034 TO 2037/MDS/2015 THE KATPADI CO-OPERATIVE TOWNSHIP LTD. 2 216/CIT(A)-13/14-15 PASSED UNDER SEC.143(3) READ W ITH SECTION 147 & SEC. 250 OF THE ACT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 200 8-09 TO 2011-12. 2.1 THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THREE ELABORATE GROUND S IN ITS APPEALS, HOWEVER THE CRUX OF THE ISSUE IS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT (A), WHO HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ORDERS OF THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER BY HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE FALLS IN THE CATEGORY OF PRIMARY CREDIT SOCIETY A S DEFINED IN SEC 5(CCVI) OF BANKING REGULATION ACT IS NOT ELIGIBLE F OR DEDUCTION U/S.80P OF THE ACT. 2.2. ADDITIONAL GROUNDS: THE CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THAT THE APP ELLANT ACTIVITIES ARE WITH ITS MEMBERS AND HENCE THE INCOM E OF THE SOCIETY DIVIDEND FROM THE MEMBERS ARE EXEMPTED FROM INCOME TAX LIABILITY ON ACCOUNT OF MUTUALITY. 3.1 THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSES SEE IS A CREDIT CO- OPERATIVE SOCIETY, DERIVING INCOME FROM CARRYING ON THE BUSINESS OF PROVIDING CREDIT FACILITIES TO ITS MEMBERS AND INCO ME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY, SELLING OF PLOTS AND DIVIDEND INCOME. SI NCE THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSME NT YEARS 2008-09, ITA NOS.2034 TO 2037/MDS/2015 THE KATPADI CO-OPERATIVE TOWNSHIP LTD. 3 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12, THE NOTICE U/S.148 WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE. THEREAFTER, ASSESSEE FILED ITS RETURNS AF TER CLAIMING EXEMPTION U/S.80P OF THE ACT. THEREAFTER, THE LD. A SSESSING OFFICER COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENTS WHEREIN THE LD.AO DISALLO WED THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S.80P OF THE ACT FOR ALL THE FOUR AS SESSMENT YEARS BY TREATING ASSESSEE HOUSING SOCIETY AS A CO-OPERATIVE BANK. 3.2 ON APPEAL, THE LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER WITH THE FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS:- THUS PERUSAL OF THE PROVISIONS OF THIS STATUTE AND OBJECT OF THE COOPERATIVE SOCIETY IT IS NOW A QUESTION WHETHER KA TPADI COOPERATIVE TOWNSHIP LIMITED IS A COOPERATIVE BANK OR NOT FOR T HE PURPOSE OF APPLICATION OF SECTION 80P. IF THE OBJECTS OF THE KATPADI COOPERATIVE TOWNSHIP LIMITED ARE SEEN ALONG WITH THE BANKING REGULATION ACT AND THE PROVISION O F THE STATUTE THAN THE KATPADI COOPERATIVE TOWNSHIP LIMITED FALLS IN THE C ATEGORY OF (CCVI) PRIMARY CREDIT SOCIETY, MEANS A COOPERATIVE SOCIE TY, OTHER THAN PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL CREDIT SOCIETY, WHERE NATURE OF PRIMAR Y CREDIT SOCIETY IS OF BANKING BUSINESS UNDER COOPERATIVE SOCIETY ACT. MOR EOVER LEARNED AR ARGUED THAT IN THIS CASE THE RATIO LAID DOWN IN THE CASE OF CIT VS JAFARI MOMIN VIKAS CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LTD, GUJARA T HC/274 CTR/2015 IS SQUARELY APPLICABLE. ITA NOS.2034 TO 2037/MDS/2015 THE KATPADI CO-OPERATIVE TOWNSHIP LTD. 4 THUS IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE SECTION 80P(4) IS RIGHTLY INVOKED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHEREBY DEDUCTION U/S.80P(2)(A) ( I), (2)(C)(II) AND (2)(D) IS NOT ELIGIBLE TO THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY I DISMISS THE APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 AND SIMILAR ISSUE ARE INVOL VED FOR AY 2009- 10, AY 2010-11 & ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12, THEREFORE ON THE SAME GROUND HELD ABOVE, THE ASSESSEE IS A COOPERATIVE BA NK CARRYING ON THE BUSINESS OF BANKING UNDER THE COOPERATIVE SOCIETY A CT. THEREFORE DEDUCTION U/S. 80P(2)(A) (I), (2)(C)(II) AND (2)(D) ARE NOT ELIGIBLE FOR THE AY 2009- 10,AY 2010-11 & AY2 011-12. ACCORDINGLY ASSES SEES APPEAL FOR THE AY 2008-09, AY 2009- 10, AY 2010-11 & AY 2011-12 AR E DISMISSED. 4. AT THE OUTSET, THE LD.A.R SUBMITTED BEFORE US T HAT THE ISSUE IS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE HON. JURIS DICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN TAX CASE (APPEAL) NOS.588 TO 643, 647 TO 6 88, 744 TO 750, 942 TO 948, 969 TO 982 OF 2015 VIDE ORDER DATED 15. 10.2015. THE LD.D.R, ON THE OTHER HAND ARGUED IN SUPPORT OF THE ORDERS OF THE REVENUE, HOWEVER COULD NOT CONTROVERT TO THE SUBMIS SIONS OF THE LD. A.R. 5. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND CAREFULLY PE RUSED THE DECISION CITED BY THE LD.A.R AND THE MATERIALS AVAI LABLE ON RECORD. AS POINTED OUT BY THE LD. A.R., THE ISSUE IS COVERED B Y THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT CITED SUPRA. WHILE DECIDING THE ITA NOS.2034 TO 2037/MDS/2015 THE KATPADI CO-OPERATIVE TOWNSHIP LTD. 5 APPEAL, THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT HAD F RAMED THE FOLLOWING TWO SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW (I) WHETHER A CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY, CARRYING ON BANKING BUSINESS WITH THE APPROVAL OF THE RESERVE BANK OF INDIA, IS LIABLE TO DEDUCT TAX U/S.194A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ON THE INTEREST PAID TO ITS MEMBERS? (II) WHETHER THERE IS ANY DISTINCTION BETWEEN A CO-OPERA TIVE BANK AND A CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY CARRYING ON BANKING BUSI NESS AND IF SO, UNDER WHICH CATEGORY THE APPELLANT WOULD FALL? ON THE SECOND QUESTION FRAMED BY THE HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT, IT WAS HELD AS FOLLOWS:- 45. THE SECOND SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW THAT WE HAVE FRAMED FOR CONSIDERATION IS AS TO WHETHER THERE EXISTS A SUBST ANTIAL OR MARKED DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY ENGAGED I N CARRYING ON BANKING BUSINESS AND A CO-OPERATIVE BANK AND IF SO, UNDER W HICH CATEGORY THE APPELLANT WOULD FALL. THE ANSWER IS TOO OBVIOUS IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING DISCUSSION. EXCEPT THE PROVISIONS OF SUB-CLAUSE (B) OF CLAUSE (I), SUB- CLAUSE (A) OF CLAUSE (III) AND SUB-CLAUSES (A) AND (B) OF CLAUSE (VIIA) OF SUB- SECTION (3) OF SECTION 194A, WE DO NOT FIND ANYWHER E A DICHOTOMY CREATED BETWEEN A CO-OPERATIVE BANK AND A CO-OPERATIVE SOCI ETY ENGAGED IN CARRYING ON BANKING BUSINESSES. THEREFORE OUR ANSW ER TO THE SECOND SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW WOULD BE THAT NONE OF T HE STATE OR CENTRAL ENACTMENTS SUCH AS THE TAMIL NADU CO-OPERATIVE SOCI ETIES ACT, 1983, THE ITA NOS.2034 TO 2037/MDS/2015 THE KATPADI CO-OPERATIVE TOWNSHIP LTD. 6 MULTI-STATE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT, 2002, THE R ESERVE BANK OF INDIA ACT, 1934, THE BANKING REGULATION ACT, 1949 AND THE NATIONAL BANK FOR AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT ACT, 1981 MAKE AN Y DISTINCTION BETWEEN A CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY ENGAGED IN CARRYING ON BANKING BUSINESS AND A CO-OPERATIVE BANK. ON THE FIRST QUESTION FRAMED BY THE HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT, IT WAS HELD AS FOLLOWS:- 60 . THAT LEAVES US WITH ONE LAST ISSUE, NAMELY, AS T O WHETHER THE CONFLICT OF OPINION BETWEEN THE TRIBUNALS AND HIGH COURTS WAS C ONFINED ONLY TO QUASI- JUDICIAL AND JUDICIAL BODIES OR AS TO WHETHER THERE WAS CONFUSION EVEN IN THE MINDS OF THE LEGISLATURE. THE ANSWER TO THIS QUESTI ON CAN BE FOUND IN THE MANNER IN WHICH AN AMENDMENT HAS BEEN BROUGHT FORTH WITH E FFECT FROM 1.6.2015 AND THE MEMORANDUM EXPLAINING THE CLAUSES. 61 . WITH EFFECT FROM 1.6.2015, SUB-SECTION (3) OF SE CTION 194A STANDS AMENDED. CLAUSE 42 OF FINANCE BILL, 2015 READS AS F OLLOWS: 42. IN SECTION 194A OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, IN SUBS ECTION (3), WITH EFFECT FROM THE 1 DAY OF JUNE, 2015,-- (A) IN CLAUSE (I), AFTER THE PROVISO, THE FOLLOWING PROVISO SHALL BE INSERTED, NAMELY:- PROVIDED FURTHER THAT THE AMOUNT REFERRED TO IN THE FIRST PROVISO SHALL BE COMPUTED WITH REFERENCE TO THE INCOME CRED ITED OR PAID BY THE BANKING COMPANY OR THE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY OR THE PUBLIC COMPANY, AS THE CASE MAY BE, WHERE SUCH BANKING COMPANY OR THE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY OR THE PUBLIC COMPANY HAS ADOPTED CORE BANK ING SOLUTIONS. ITA NOS.2034 TO 2037/MDS/2015 THE KATPADI CO-OPERATIVE TOWNSHIP LTD. 7 (B) IN CLAUSE (V), FOR THE WORDS PAID BY A CO-OPER ATIVE SOCIETY TO A MEMBER THEREOF OR, THE WORDS AND BRACKETS PAID BY A CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY (OTHER THAN A CO-OPERATIVE BANK) TO A MEMBE R THEREOF OR TO SUCH INCOME CREDITED OR PAID BY A CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY SHALL BE SUBSTITUTED; (C) AFTER CLAUSE (V), THE FOLLOWING EXPLANATION SHA LL BE INSERTED, NAMELY:-- EXPLANATION.--FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS CLAUSE, CO -OPERATIVE BANK SHALL HAVE THE SAME AS MEANING ASSIGNED TO IT IN PART V O F THE BANKING REGULATION ACT, 1949; (D) FOR CLAUSE (IX), THE FOLLOWING CLAUSES SHALL BE SUBSTITUTED, NAMELY:- (IX) TO SUCH INCOME CREDITED BY WAY OF INTEREST ON THE C OMPENSATION AMOUNT AWARDED BY THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL; (IX A) TO SUCH INCOME PAID BY WAY OF INTEREST ON THE COMPENSATION AMOUNT AWARDED BY THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL WHERE THE AMOUNT OF SUCH INCOME OR, AS THE CASE MAY BE, THE AGGREGATE OF THE AMOUNTS OF SU CH INCOME PAID DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR DOES NOT EXCEED FIFTY THO USAND RUPEES; (E) IN EXPLANATION 1 BELOW CLAUSE (XI), FOR THE WOR D EXCLUDING, THE WORD INCLUDING SHALL BE SUBSTITUTED. 62 . THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE MEMORANDUM EXPLAINING THE CLAUSES IN THE FINANCE BILL READS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 194A(1) READ WITH SECTION 194A(3)(I) OF TH E ACT PROVIDE FOR DEDUCTION OF TAX ON INTEREST (OTHER THAN INTEREST O N SECURITIES) OVER A SPECIFIED THRESHOLD, I.E. RS.10,000/- FOR INTEREST PAYMENT BY BANKS, CO- OPERATIVE SOCIETY ENGAGED IN BANKING BUSINESS (CO-O PERATIVE BANK) AND POST OFFICE AND RS.5,000/- FOR PAYMENT OF INTEREST BY OTHER PERSONS. FURTHER, SUB-SECTION (3) OF SECTION 194A INTER ALIA ALSO PROVIDES FOR EXEMPTION FROM DEDUCTION OF TAX IN RESPECT OF FOLLO WING INTEREST PAYMENTS BY COOPERATIVE SOCIETY: ITA NOS.2034 TO 2037/MDS/2015 THE KATPADI CO-OPERATIVE TOWNSHIP LTD. 8 (I) INTEREST PAYMENT BY A CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY TO A MEMBER THEREOF OR ANY OTHER CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY. [SECTION 194A(3)(V) OF THE ACT] (II) INTEREST PAYMENTS ON DEPOSITS BY A PRIMARY AGR ICULTURAL CREDIT SOCIETY OR PRIMARY CREDIT SOCIETY OR CO-OPERATIVE LAND MORTGAG E BANK OR CO-OPERATIVE LAND DEVELOPMENT BANK. [SECTION 194A(3)(VIIA)(A) OF THE ACT] (III) INTEREST PAYMENT ON DEPOSITS OTHER THAN TIME DEPOSIT BY A CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF BANKING OTHER TH AN THOSE MENTIONED IN SECTION 194A(3)(VIIA)(A) OF THE ACT. [SECTION 194A( 3)(VIIA)(B) OF THE ACT] THEREFORE, AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 194A(1) READ WITH PROVISIONS OF SECTIONS 194A(3)(I)(B) AND 194A(3)(VIIA)(B), CO-OPE RATIVE BANK IS REQUIRED TO DEDUCT TAX FROM INTEREST PAYMENT ON TIME DEPOSIT S IF THE AMOUNT OF SUCH PAYMENT EXCEEDS SPECIFIED THRESHOLD OF RS.10,000/-. HOWEVER, AS THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 194A(3)(V) OF THE ACT PROVIDE A GENERAL EXEMPTION FROM MAKING TAX DEDUCTION FROM PAYMENT OF INTEREST BY ALL CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES TO ITS MEMBERS, THE CO-OPERATIVE BANKS TR IED TO AVAIL THIS EXEMPTION BY MAKING THEIR DEPOSITORS AS MEMBERS OF DIFFERENT CATEGORIES. THIS HAS LED TO DISPUTE AS TO WHETHER THE CO-OPERAT IVE BANKS, FOR WHICH THE SPECIFIC PROVISIONS OF TAX DEDUCTION EXIST IN THE F ORM OF SECTION 194A(1), SECTION 194A(3)(I)(B) AND SECTION 194A(3)(VIIA)(B) OF THE ACT, CAN TAKE THE BENEFIT OF GENERAL EXEMPTION PROVIDED TO ALL CO-OPE RATIVE SOCIETIES FROM DEDUCTION OF TAX ON PAYMENT OF INTEREST TO MEMBERS. THE MATTER HAS BEEN CARRIED TO JUDICIAL FORUMS AND IN SOME CASES A VIEW HAS BEEN TAKEN THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 194A(3)(VIIA)(B) OF THE A CT MAKES NO DISTINCTION BETWEEN MEMBERS AND NON- MEMBERS OF CO-OPERATIVE BA NKS FOR THE PURPOSES OF DEDUCTION OF TAX, HENCE, THE CO-OPERATI VE BANKS ARE REQUIRED TO DEDUCT TAX ON PAYMENT OF INTEREST ON TIME DEPOSI T AND CANNOT AVOID THE SAME BY TAKING THE PLEA OF THE GENERAL EXEMPTION PR OVIDED UNDER SECTION 194A(3)(V) OF THE ACT. THIS IS BECAUSE THE SPECIFIC PROVISION OF TAX ITA NOS.2034 TO 2037/MDS/2015 THE KATPADI CO-OPERATIVE TOWNSHIP LTD. 9 DEDUCTION PROVIDED UNDER SECTION 194A(3)(I)(B) AND 194A(3)(VIIA)(B) OF THE ACT FOR COOPERATIVE BANKS OVERRIDE THE GENERAL EXEM PTION PROVIDED TO ALL CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES FOR NON-DEDUCTION OF TAX FRO M INTEREST PAYMENT TO MEMBERS UNDER SECTION 194A(3)(V) OF THE ACT. AS THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE IN THE FUNCTIONING OF THE CO-OPERATIVE BANKS AND OTHER COMMERCIAL BANKS, THE FINANCE ACT, 2006 AND F INANCE ACT, 2007 AMENDED THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT TO PROVIDE FOR CO OPERATIVE BANKS A TAXATION REGIME WHICH IS SIMILAR TO THAT FOR THE OT HER COMMERCIAL BANKS. THEREFORE, THERE IS NO RATIONALE FOR TREATING THE C O-OPERATIVE BANKS DIFFERENTLY FROM OTHER COMMERCIAL BANKS IN THE MATT ER OF DEDUCTION OF TAX AND ALLOWING THEM TO AVAIL THE EXEMPTION MEANT FOR SMALLER CREDIT CO- OPERATIVE SOCIETIES FORMED FOR THE BENEFIT OF SMALL NUMBER OF MEMBERS. HOWEVER, AS MENTIONED EARLIER, A DOUBT HAS BEEN CRE ATED REGARDING THE APPLICABILITY OF THE SPECIFIC PROVISIONS MANDATING DEDUCTION OF TAX FROM THE PAYMENT OF INTEREST ON TIME DEPOSITS BY THE COOPERA TIVE BANKS TO ITS MEMBERS BY CLAIMING THAT GENERAL EXEMPTION PROVIDED IS ALSO APPLICABLE FOR PAYMENT OF INTEREST TO MEMBER DEPOSITORS. IN VI EW OF THIS, IT IS PROPOSED TO AMEND THE PROVISIONS OF THE SECTION 194 A OF THE ACT TO EXPRESSLY PROVIDE FROM THE PROSPECTIVE DATE OF 1 JU NE, 2015 THAT THE EXEMPTION PROVIDED FROM DEDUCTION OF TAX FROM PAYME NT OF INTEREST TO MEMBERS BY A CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY UNDER SECTION 194 A(3)(V) OF THE ACT SHALL NOT APPLY TO THE PAYMENT OF INTEREST ON TIME DEPOSITS BY THE COOPERATIVE BANKS TO ITS MEMBERS. 63 . IT CAN BE SEEN FROM THE LAST PART OF THE PORTION EXTRACTED ABOVE THAT THE VERY NOTE EXPLAINING THE CLAUSE WAS SPECIFIC TO THE EFFE CT THAT THE PROPOSAL WAS TO BRING FORTH AN AMENDMENT WITH PROSPECTIVE EFFECT FR OM 1.6.2015. THERE IS NO DISPUTE NOW THAT ON AND FROM 1.6.2015 THE APPELLANT CANNOT ESCAPE THE LIABILITY FROM DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE. ITA NOS.2034 TO 2037/MDS/2015 THE KATPADI CO-OPERATIVE TOWNSHIP LTD. 10 64 . ONCE AN AMENDMENT IS INTRODUCED, FOR THE PURPOSE OF REMOVING THE ANOMALOUS SITUATION OR FOR THE PURPOSE OF REMOVING THE CONFUSIONS BOTH IN THE MANNER IN WHICH THE PROVISIONS STOOD AND THE MANNER IN WHICH THEY WERE UNDERSTOOD, THE SAME COULD BE TAKEN ONLY TO HAVE PR OSPECTIVE EFFECT. IT MUST BE POINTED OUT THAT THE PARLIAMENT DID NOT CHOOSE TO A NSWER A QUESTION. RATHER IT CHOSE TO AMEND THE PROVISIONS. IT IS NOW WELL SETTL ED THAT AN AMENDMENT CAN ONLY BE PROSPECTIVE UNLESS IT IS MADE RETROSPECTIVE BY E XPRESS LANGUAGE OR NECESSARY IMPLICATION. APART FROM THE FACT THAT THE EXPRESS L ANGUAGE OF SECTION 194A AFTER AMENDMENT DOES NOT INDICATE ANY RETROSPECTIVITY, TH E NOTE EXPLAINING THE CLAUSES GOES ONE STEP FURTHER IN MAKING IT CLEAR THAT IT WA S INTENDED TO HAVE PROSPECTIVE EFFECT FROM 1.6.2015. 65 . THEREFORE OUR ANSWER TO THE FIRST SUBSTANTIAL QUE STION OF LAW WOULD BE J IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. 66 . HOWEVER, MR.3.NARAYANASAMY, LEARNED SENIOR STANDI NG COUNSEL CONTENDS THAT IN COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX V. ALOM EXTRUSIO NS LTD., (2009) 319 ITR 0306, THE SUPREME COURT CONSTRUED A SIMILAR AMENDME NT TO HAVE RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT. BUT UNFORTUNATELY THE SUPREME COURT WAS CON CERNED IN THAT CASE WITH THE BENEFIT CONFERRED UPON THE ASSESSEE AND NOT A LEVY. THEREFORE ON THE BASIS OF ALOM EXTRUSIONS, IT CANNOT BE CONTENDED THAT THE AM ENDMENT MERELY CLARIFIED THE EXISTING PROVISIONS SO AS TO HAVE RETROSPECTIVE EFF ECT OR TO BECOME RETROACTIVE. FROM THE ABOVE DECISIONS IT IS CLEAR THAT FOR THE R ELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEARS 2008-09 TO 2011-12 THE HONBLE MADRAS HIGH CO URT HAS HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE WOULD NOT BE LIABLE TO DEDUCT TAX U/S. 194 OF THE ACT AS THE NONE OF THE STATE OR CENTRAL ENACTMENTS SUCH AS THE TAMIL NADU CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT, 1983, THE MULTI-ST ATE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT, 2002, THE RESERVE BANK OF INDIA ACT, 1934, THE ITA NOS.2034 TO 2037/MDS/2015 THE KATPADI CO-OPERATIVE TOWNSHIP LTD. 11 BANKING REGULATION ACT, 1949 AND THE NATIONAL BANK FOR AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT ACT, 1981 DO NOT MAKE ANY DISTINCTION BETWEEN A CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY ENGAGED IN CARRYING ON BANKING BUSINESS AND A CO-OPERATIVE BANK. HOWEVER, FROM 01 .06.2015 ONWARDS THE APPELLANT CANNOT ESCAPE FROM THE LIABIL ITY FOR DEDUCTING TAX AT SOURCE. THEREFORE RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING TH E DECISION OF THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT BOTH THE INTERREL ATED GROUNDS RAISED IN ALL THESE APPEALS BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED IN ITS FAVOUR. 6. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSE SSEE ARE ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THE 20 TH JANUARY, 2016 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( . . . ) ( N.R.S.GANESAN ) ( . ) (A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER CHENNAI, DATED THE 20 TH JANUARY, 2016. K S SUNDARAM. & (/0 10 /COPY TO: 1. % /APPELLANT 2. ()% /RESPONDENT 3. 2 () /CIT(A) 4. 2 /CIT 5. 0 (6 /DR 6. ' /GF