Holding

The High Court had jurisdiction to correct the Tribunal's erroneous legal assumption and to direct it to consider whether additional surcharge was attracted, and the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal.

Summary

Salem Cooperative Central Bank, a cooperative society engaged in banking, received Rs. 19 as interest on a security deposit with an electricity distribution company. The Income Tax Officer treated the amount as income from other sources and levied an additional surcharge under the Finance Act. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal held the interest to be business income, exempt under Section 81(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, and dismissed the surcharge. The Revenue appealed, and the matter was referred to the Madras High Court under Section 256 for a determination of whether surcharge was payable even if the receipt was classified as business income. The High Court directed the Tribunal to consider the surcharge question, which the assessee challenged as beyond the Court's jurisdiction. The Supreme Court held that the High Court was empowered to correct the erroneous legal assumption and to direct the Tribunal to examine surcharge liability, and therefore dismissed the appeal.

Issues considered

Whether the interest on a security deposit received by a cooperative bank is to be treated as business income under the Income Tax Act.
Whether additional surcharge under the Finance Act is attracted when such interest is classified as business income.
Whether the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction under Section 256 of the Income Tax Act by directing the Tribunal to consider the surcharge liability.

Legislation cited

Finance Act (relevant year)
Income Tax Act, 1961s. 256, s. 66(1), s. 81(1)(a), s. 86(i)

Subjects

income taxcooperative societybusiness incomeadditional surchargeSection 256jurisdictioninterest incomeexemption

Judgment

SALEM COOPERATIVE CENTRAL BANK LIMIJ'ED A
v.
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MADRAS'

APRIL 6; 1993

[B.P. JEEVAN REDDY AND N. VENKATACHALA, JJ.) B
•

- Income Tax Act, 1961:

Sections 86(i) and 256--Cooperative Society carrying on banking busi-
ness--Business income exempt from income·t~nterest 011 Security Deposit C
for supply of electricity-Whether additio11al surcharge leviable-'-Tribunal
holding interest to be business income-Reference to High Court-High CouTt
returning reference and directing Tribunal to consider all poin.ts whether
additional surcharge attracted--Whether High CouTt exceeded the reference
jurisdiction. ·
D
The appellant-assessee was. a cooperative society engaged in the
business or banking. The previous year relevant to the assessment year
19634i4 was the year ending June 30, 1962. The business income or the
assessee was exempt under the provisions or Section 80(1) as it then stood.
During the aforesaid accounting year, th.e assessee received a sum or Rs. E
19 being the interest on the deposit made by it with an Electricity Distribo·

- tioo Company. This deposit had to be made by the assessee as it was
required by the conditions notified by the electricity company for supply
of energy, and it carried interest. It was on account or the said deposit that
the sum or Rs. 19 was received by the assessee, by way of interest.
F
The Income-tax Officer treated the amount or Rs. 19 as income from
other sources, and on that basis, he levied additional surcharge, in a sum
of Rs. 81,920.

The assessee appealed to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner who G
upheld the assessee's contention that the said sum of Rs. 19 constituted
its business income and, was therefore, exempt. He held that the levy of
surcharge was unsustainable.-

The Revenue appealed to the Appellate Tribunal which held that it
was 'income from business', and accordingly dismissed the Revenue's H
997
·1
998 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1993) 2 S.C.R. 1
A appeal. At the instance of the Revenue, the Tribunal referred the question
to the High Court.
\"
The High Court held, that the assumption made by the Appellate
Assistant Commissioner and the Tribunal that the liability of surcharge
was not attracted in case the said sum of Rs; 19 represented business
)I. f
B income may not be warranted and that in such a situation the High Court (
•
does possess the power to correct the error so long· as the point arose out
of the Tribunal's order. It returned the reference unanswered and directed
the Tribunal to consider the case on all poiPts that require consideration
J.
of the question whether additional surcharge was attracted.
c In the assessee's appeal to this Court, it was submitted that the
High Court exceeded its jurisdiction in making the aforesaid direction,
that the High Court widened the scope of enquiry which it was not
empowered to do in a reference under Section 256 and that the matter

D
should be sent back· to the High Court for answering the question of law
as stated by the Tribunal. i
E
Dismissing the appeal, this Court,

HELD : All that the High Court has asked the Tribunal to do is to
consider whether the liahiliiy of surcharge is not attracted even if the said
sum of Rs. 19 is treated as income from business. The fact that the
l
~

-[
revenue was also a party to the said en-oneous assumption before the
Tribunal cannot stand in the way of the Revenue resiling from an er·
roneous assumption of law. (1004 D-F]

F In the instant case, the question was whether additional surcharge
was leviable for the assessment year 1963-64 under the relevant Finance '•
Act. The assessee's contention was that it had no income which was liable
to be assessed to income-tax inasmuch as its entire income was exempt
under Section 81(1)(a), and it was submitted that the sum of Rs. 19 was (
also a business income and, therefore, the liability of additional surcharge
G did not attach to the assessee. The l.T.O. took the view that the said sum
of Rs. 19 represented income from other sources and, therefore, liability ~

of additional surcharge was attracted. The Appellate Assistant Commis·
' '
sioner upheld this contention. The High Court, however, thought that
having-regard to the language of the provisions of the relevant Finance
H Act, the Tribunal ought to examine whether the liability to additional t
SALEM CO-OP. BANK v. C.l.T. [REDDY, J.] 999

surcharge was attracted even if the said sum of Rs. 19 was treated as A
income from business. The High Court was of the opinion that this legal
submission, though raised for the first time, did call for serious con·
sideration. This was done to arrive at a correct decision in law relating to
the liability to additional surcharge. If reall~, additional surcharge was
chargeable according to the Finance Act ev~n in case the said sum of Rs. B
19 represented business income, the High Court cannot be called upon to
act on the assumption that it is not so chargeable and answer the question

- stated. Such a course would neither be in the interest of law or justice.
That the Revenue was also a party to the erroneous assumption of law
makes little difference to the principle. [1004 B-F]

't- .C.l. T. Bombay v. Scindia Steam Navigati011 ltd., 42 l.T.R. 589, relied
c
on. [1004-H]

V.R. Y.KN. Kallappa Chettiar v. Commissioner of Income Tax, 62
l.T.R. 576; C.l. T. v. Oga/e Glass Works ltd., 25 I.T.R. 529; Keshav Mills Co.
ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay North, Ahmedabad, 56 I.T.R. D
365; Commissioner of Income Tax, Bi/tar and Orissa v. Kirkend Coal Co., 74
l.T.R. 67 and Kusumben D. Maltadevia v. Commissioner of lllcome Tax,
Bombay City, 39 I.T.R. 540, not applicable. (1004-H)

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2169(NT) E
of 1993.

-. From the Judgment and Order dated 10.12.1979 of the Madras High
Court .in Tax Case No. 398 of 1976.

Mrs. Janaki Ramachandran for the Appellant.
y F
K.N. Shukla, Sudhir Walia and P. Parmeswaran for the Respondent.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

B.P. JEEVAN REDDY, J. Under Section 256(1) of the Income Tax G
Act, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras stated the following
question of law for the opinion of the Madras High Court:

"Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case,
the Tribunal was right in holding that the sum of Rs. 19
being the interest received on the deposits made with the H
1000 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1993) 2 S.C.R.

A Electricity company is a business receipt and accordingly
deleting the additional surcharge of Rs. 81,920 charged
for the assessment year 1963-64?'

The High Court returned the reference unanswered. It directed the y
Tribunal to consider the case "on all points that require consideration of
B the question, whether additional surcharge was attracted'. In short, it asked
the Tribunal to examine whether the additional surcharge was attracted
even if the income of Rs. 19 is chargeable under the head 'Profits and gains
of business'. The learned counsel for the assessee submits that the High
Court exceeded its jurisdiction in making the above direction. It is sub-
-
c mitted that the matter be sent back to the High Court for answering the
..,.,
question of law as stated by the Tribunal. The contention of the learned
counsel is that by giving the impugned direction the High Court has sought
to widen the scope of enquiry which it is not empowered to do in a
reference under Section 256.
D
The assessee is a cooperative society engaged in the business of
banking. The previous year retevant to the assessment year 1963-64 was the
year ending June 30, 1962. Its business income was exempt under the
provisions of Section 81(1) as it then stood. During the said accounting ~
year, the assessee received a sum of Rs. 19 being the interest on the deposit
E made by it with the Salem-Erode Electricity Distribution Company. This
deposit was made by the assessee as required by the conditions notified by
the said company for supply of energy. The deposit carried interest and it
is on account of the said interest that the sum of Rs. 19 was received by
the assessee. The Income Tax Officer treated the said amount of Rs. 19 as
-
F 'income from other sources'. On that basis, he levied additional surcharge,
in a sum of Rs. 81,920, under the provisions of the relevant Finance Act. "f
On appeal, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner upheld the contention
of the assessee that the said sum of Rs. 19 also constituted its business
income and, therefore, exempt. Accordingly, he held, the levy of surcharge
was unsustainable. The Revenue appealed to the Appellate Tribunal. Its
G case was that the said receipt cannot be treated as a business receipt and
~
that it was rightly treated by the I.T.O. as 'income from other sources'. The '
Tribunal recorded in its order : "Before us it is made clear by both sides
that the levy of additional surcharge and interest would depend upon the
classification of the head of income for this interest income of Rs. 19 and
H that if it fell under iricome from business, the appeal has to be dismissed
SALEM CO-OP. BANK v. C.l.T. [REDDY, J.] 1001

and that if it fell under 'income from other sources', the appeal has to be A
allowed and the levy of surcharge and interest restored. So we proceed to
discuss the vital issue in this case on which hangs the result of this appeal.'
The Tribunal held it 'income from business' and accordingly dismissed the
appeal fded by the Revenue. At the instance of the revenue, the Tribunal
stated the aforesaid question.
B

- Before the High Court it was contended by the Revenue that both
the A.A.C. and the Tribunal laboured under an erroneous assumption that
the said sum of Rs. 19 represented business income and the liability of
surcharge was not attracted. It was submitted that whether the said sum
was a business income or income from other sources, it attracted the C
liability of additional surcharge. The assessee, however, submitted that it
was not open to the revenue to take the said stand, inasmuch as it agreed
before the Tribunal that in case the said sum constituted business income,
liability of additional surcharge was not attracted. The assessee submitted
further that the High Court should not allow the revenue to shift its stand D
and urge a new contention. The High Court held, after an examination of
the relevant provisions of the Finance Act and of the decisions relating to
\he nature of jurisdiction of the High Court in such a reference, that the
assumption made by the A.A.C. and the Tribunal that the liability of
surcharge is not attracted in case the said sum of Rs. 19 represented
business income may not be warranted and that in such a· situation the High E
Court. does possess the power to correct the error so long as the point
arose out of the Tribunal's order. The High Court held:

"This Court cannot look on helplessly with reference to
an error which is manifested in the contention of both F
sid~s before the Tribunal. This court has jurisdiction to
correct an error in the order of the Tribunal, so long as
the point arose out of its order, whoever be the author of
the mistake or error in taking up an particular contention.
Having regard to the nature of the issue that was before
the· Tribunal and having regard to what we have stated G
above, we think it proper to set aside the order of the
Tribunal and direct the Tribunal to consider the case on
all the points that require consideration of the question
whether additional surcharge was attracted. The reference
is returned unanswered." H
1002 >uYKEME COURT REPORTS [1993) 2 S.C.R.

A We find it difficult to agree with Smt. Janaki Ramachandran, learned
counsel for the assessee that the High Court has exceeded its jurisdiction
under Section 256 in making the above direction. As rightly observed by
the High Court, if the Tribunal proceeds upon an assumption which is y
erroneous in law and refers a question to the High Court, it cannot be said
that the High Court is bound by the terms of the question referred and
B cannot correct the erroneous assumption of law underlying the question.
If such power is not conceded to the High Court, the result would be that
the answer given by the High Court may equally be erroneous in law. Such
a situation cannot certainly be countenanced. It would not be in the interest
of law or justice. It is not as if the High Court has asked for any fresh
c investigation of facts in this case - not that such power does not exist in ·--\
the High Court in a appropriate case. All that the High Court has asked
the Tribunal to do is to consider whether the liability of surcharge is not
attracted even if the said sum of Rs. 19 is treated as income from business.
The fact that the revenue was also a party to the said erroneous assumption
D before the Tribunal cannot stand in the way of the Revenue resiting from
an erroneous assumption of law.

In C./. T., Bombay v. Scindia Steam Navigation Ltd., ( 42 I.T.R. 589) ~
the facts were these: a steam-ship belonging to the respondent company
E was requisitioned by·the gove~nment. The ship was lost by enemy action
on ·March 16, 1944. The company received a sum of Rs. 20 lacs by way of
compensation on July 17, 1944, a sum of Rs. 23 lacs on December 22, 1944
and a sum of Rs. 33,333 on August 10, 1946. The total compensation sol
received exceeded the cost price of the steam ship. The difference between
the cost price and written down value was Rs. 9,26,532. In the assessment .
F proceeding for the A. Y. 1946-47, the revenue sought to charge the said 1
amount under the fourth proviso to Section 10(2)(vii) of the Income Tax
Act, 1922, inserted by the Income Tax (Amendment) Act, 1946, which
came into force on May 4, 1946. The assessee contended that the amount
should be deemed to have been received on April 16,1944 as was done for
G the purposes of Excess Profits Tax Act, in which case it could not fall~
within the ·accounting period July 1, 1944 to June 30, 1945, relevant to the '
A.Y. 1946-47. The Tribunal was of the opinion that the material date for
the purpose of the fourth proviso to Section 10(2)(vii) was the date when
the compensation was in fact received and that therefore the amount was
H assessable in the A.Y. 1946-47. At the instance of the assessee, the Tribunal
)-

~· SALEM CO-OP. BANK "· C.l.T. [REDDY, J.) 1003

stated the following question of law for the opinion of the High Court A
"whether the sum of Rs. 9,26,532 was properly included in the assessee
company's total income computed for the A.Y. 1946-47?" Before the High
Court the assessee raised a new contention for the first time that the fourth
-..:: proviso to section 10(2)(vii) did not apply to the assessment as it was not
in force on April 1, 1946 and the liability of the company had to be
B
determined as on April 1, 1946, when the Finance Act, 1946 came into
force. A preliminary objection was raised by the revenue that the said

- aspect, or question as it may be called, did not arise out of the order of
the Tribunal, that it was not raised before or dealt with by the Tribunal
and that it was also not referred for the opining of the High Court. The
High Court over-ruled the objection opining that the form in which the
c
-f question was framed was sufficiently wide lo take in the new contention
and that the company was entitled to raise it even if that aspect of the
question had not been argued before the Tribunal. It upheld the new
contention raised by the assessee and answered the question in its favour.
On appeal, this court affirmed. It wa" held that the High Court had D
jurisdiction to entertain the new contention raised by the assessee for the
first time inasmuch as it was within the scope of the question framed by •
the Tribunal and was implicit therein. This court enunciated several prin-
;.. ciples relating to the nature of the jurisdiction of the High Court under
Section 256, of which the following principle is relevant for our purpose: E

-- "Section 66(1) speaks of a question of law that arises out
of the order of the Tribunal. Now a question of law might
be a simple one, having its impact at one point, or it may
be a complex one, !ranching over an area with approac_hes F
y leading to different points therein. Such a question might
involve more than one aspect, requiring to be tackled from
different standpoints. All that Section 66(1) requires is
that the question of law which is referred to the court for
decision and which the court is to decide must be the
question which was in issue before the Tribunal. Where G
the question itself was under issue, there is no farther
limitation imposed by the section that the reference should
be limited lo those aspects of the question which had been
argued before the Tribunal. It will be an over-refinemen(
of the position to hold that each aspect of a question is H
1004 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1993) 2 S.C.R. '""'
·-I
A itself a distinct question for the purpose of section 66(1)
of the Act."

This decision of the Constitution Bench, in our opinion justifies and
warrants the approach adopted by the High Court in the judgment under
')£'
appeal. The question in the present case is whether additional surcharge
B was leviable for the A.Y. 1963-64 under the relevant Finance Act. The
· assessee's contention was that it has no income which was liable to be

c
assessed to income-tax inasmuch as its entire income was exempt under
Section 8l{l)(a). In tune with this submission, the assessee submitted that
the said sum of Rs. 19 was also a business income and, therefore, the
liability of additional surcharge did not attach to the assessee. The l.T.O.
-
took the view that the said sum of Rs. 19 represented income from other
sources and therefore liability of additional surcharge was attracted. On
,,.
Appeal, the AAC and the Tribunal upheld the assessee's contention that
it was business income and therefore the liability of surcharge was not
D attracted. The High Court, however, thought that having regard to the
language of'the provisions of the relevant Finance Act, the Tribunal ought
to examine whether the liability to additional surcharge is attracted even if
the said sum of Rs. 19 was treated as income from business. The High
Coutt was of the opinion that the legal submission urged by the Revenue
-A
E before the High Court, no doubt for the first .time, did call for serious
consideration. This was done to arrive at a correct decision in law relating
to the liability to additional surcharge. If really, additional surcharge was
chargeable according to the Finance Act even in case the said sum of Rs.
19 represented business income, the High Court cannot be called upon to
act on the assumption that it is not so chargeable and answer the question
F stated. Such a course would neither be in the interest of law or justice. That
-
the Revenue was also a party to the erroneous assumption of law makes '(
little difference to the principle.

Counsel fur the parties have cited several decisions touching upon
G the nature 0f the jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 256 viz.,
VR. Y.K.N. Kallappa Chettiar v. Commissioner of Income Tax, 62 l.T.R. 576,
C.I. T. v. Ogale Glass Works Ltd., 25 l.T.R. 529 and Keshav Mills Co. Ltd. ~
v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay Nonh, Ahmedabad, 56 I.T.R. 365
by the learned counsel for the appellant and Commissioner of Income Tax,
H Bihar and Orissa v. Kirkend Coal Co., 74 I.T.R. 67 and Kusumben D.
SALEM CO-OP. SANK v. C.l.T. [REDDY, J.] 1005

Mahadevia v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay City, 39 l.T.R. 540 by A
the learned counsel for the Revenue. We do not, however, think it neces-
sary to refer to them, since the situation present herein was not present in
those cases. The principles of these decisions does not in any manner run
contrary to the one affirmed by us herein, which is consistent with the one
enunciated in Scindia Steam Navigation.
B
The appeal accordingly fails and is dismissed. No costs.

- N.V.K. Appeal dismissed.

--