AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Janarthanam, J.—The parties in these actions are different. The question of law, however, involved in these actions is one and the same.
Desirable it is, therefore, to dispose of them, by a common order, though, of course, after stating"" the minimal facts required for arriving at a just
decision.
In the tax case (reference), the assessee, Appavu Chettiar Sons, Madurai, is a registered firm, which derives income from jewellery business.
The firm consists of eight partners, in their capacity as kartas of the Hindu undivided family (HUF).
The partners, in the capacity of kartas of the Hindu undivided family, it is said, deposited certain amounts in the firm. Interest payments were
made to them in respect of the deposits they have made in the firm. During the assessment year 1982-83, the question that arose for consideration
was as to whether the interest payments made to them can qualify for deduction in the computation of the income u/s 40(b) of the Income Tax Act,
1961 (Act No. 43 of 1961, for short ""the I. T. Act"").
The Assessing Officer disallowed the total interest payments aggregating to Rs. 14,528 u/s 40(b) of the Income Tax Act.
The assessee appealed to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-IV, Madras (for short ""the CIT""), who dismissed the appeal, confirming
the view taken by the Assessing Officer.
The assessee appealed to the Tribunal.
The Tribunal also dismissed the appeal, confirming the view expressed by the Assessing Officer and later approved by the Commissioner of
Income Tax.
On these facts, the Tribunal, at the instance of the assessee u/s 256(1) of the Income Tax Act referred for the opinion of this court, the question
as below :
Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in upholding the disallowance of interest
admittedly paid to the partners in respect of the funds deposited by them in their individual capacity with the firm of RM. Appavu Chettiar Sons,
Madurai, while they were partners in the said firm representing their respective Hindu undivided families u/s 40(b) of the Income Tax Act for the
assessment year 1982-83 ?
We may now advert to the factual matrix of the writ petition :
Thangam Industries--the petitioner, having their place of business at door No. 112/5, Madurai Road, Virudhunagar, is a registered partnership
firm, consisting of five partners, who are the kartas representing their respective Hindu undivided families.
The Fourth Income Tax Officer, Virudhunagar, in framing the assessment for the year 1984-85 u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act disallowed
the interest claimed to the tune of Rs. 2,35,185 paid to five partners. The interest payments are relatable to the deposits made by the five partners
in their capacity as kartas representing their respective Hindu undivided families.
The order so passed was challenged by way of revision u/s 264 of the Income Tax Act, before the Commissioner of Income Tax, Madurai,
who in turn dismissed the revision, by order dated September 25, 1987, and confirmed the assessment order made by the Assessing Officer.
The assessee-petitioner challenged the order of the Commissioner in writ proceeding''s before this court.
The said writ petition was pending before a learned single judge of this court It appears, a representation had been made to the said learned
single judge that the question of law involved for consideration therein is identical to the one arising for consideration in the Tax Case (Reference)
No. 1683 of 1986, and, consequently, the said learned judge, by his order, directed the writ petition to be posted before the Bench, before which
the said Tax Case (Reference) No. 1683 of 1986 is posted for hearing.
The Registry, in turn, placed the order of the learned single judge, before the Chief Justice, who, in turn, passed an order directing the Registry
to place this writ petition before the Bench, before which Tax Case (Reference) No. 1683 of 1986 had been posted and that is how the writ
petition is before us.
In the tax case (reference) eight partners are kartas representing their individual Hindu undivided families. The deposits were made in the firm
by them not in their capacity representing"" their respective Hindu undivided families, but what they did say was that the deposits were made in the
firm in their individual capacity and the interest amounts in respect of the deposits were paid to them in their individual capacity.
In the writ petition, of course, five partners of the registered firm are also kartas representing their respective Hindu undivided families. But the
deposits were, however, made by them in the firm in their capacity as kartas representing their respective Hindu undivided families. This is the crux
of the data in the factual matrix of the two actions, which are now before us.
It is not as if the point involved for consideration in these actions did not at all arise at any anterior point of time before the apex court of this
country and the plain fact is that such a question arose for consideration before the apex court in the case of Brij Mohan Das Laxman Das Vs.
Commissioner of Income Tax, Allahabad, .
In that case, the question, which arose for consideration by way of a reference was as below (page 827) :
Whether, the Tribunal was correct in allowing the assessee''s claim for interest paid on the credit balance in the individual account of Sri Rajendra
Kumar ?
The factual matrix necessary to understand the question so posed is as below :
The assessee-Brij Mohan Das Laxman Das, is a partnership firm having three partners. One of them is Rajendra Kumar. He was a partner as the
karta of and representing his Hindu undivided family. The partnership firm maintained two accounts in the name of Rajendra Kumar, a capital
account and a deposit account. The share of profit of Rajendra Kumar was credited to the capital account, while the interest paid to him on the
deposits made by him was credited to his deposit account. In other words, the deposits were said to have been made by Rajendra Kumar in his
indi- vidual capacity and, accordingly, interest was paid to him in his individual capacity. Rajendra Kumar was assessed in the status of individual
and also in the status of the Hindu undivided family.
For the assessment year 1974-75, the Income Tax Officer called upon the assessee to show cause why the interest amount in a sum of Rs.
7,923 paid to Rajendra Kumar be not added back to the income of the partnership firm since it was a payment made to a partner.
The assessee contended that since the amount was paid to Rajendra Kumar in his individual capacity and not in his capacity as a partner, the
said payment cannot be disallowed under Clause (b) of Section 40 of the Income Tax Act.
The said plea was rejected by the Income Tax Officer and his view was affirmed in appeal by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner.
On further appeal, however, the Tribunal agreed with the assessee and deleted the said addition.
On a reference the High Court held, following its earlier decision in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. London Machinery Co., , that the
amount was rightly disallowed by the Income Tax Officer and that the Tribunal was not right in allowing the assessee''s appeal. The High Court
had, however, certified the case u/s 261 of the Income Tax Act.
The Supreme Court, after taking into consideration Explanations 1 to 3, subsequently added to the said section and the various hues of views
expressed by various High Courts relatable to the Explanations so added, ultimately held that the interest paid to Rajendra Kumar could not be
disallowed in the firm''s assessment for the assessment year 1974-75, by recourse to Section 40(b) of the Income Tax Act.
The sum and substance of the rationale for arriving at such a conclusion is reflected in the relevant paragraph at page 830, which reads as
under : ""This court also quoted with approval the passage from Lindley on the Law of Partnership to the effect : ''In point of law, a partner may be
the debtor or the creditor of his co-partners, but he cannot be either debtor or creditor of the firm of which he is himself a member, nor can he be
employed by his firm, for, a man cannot be his own employer''. The provisions in Chapters III and IV of the Partnership Act amply define and
delineate the duties, obligations and rights of the partners vis-a-vis the firm. The question yet remains where an individual is a partner in one
capacity, e.g., as a representative of another person, can he have no other capacity, vis-a-vis the firm. To be more precise, does the above
position of law preclude an individual, who is a partner representing a Hindu undivided family, from depositing his personal funds with the
partnership and receiving interest thereon ? Explanation 2 says in clear terms that there is no such bar. This is the legislative recognition of the
theory of different capacities an individual may hold--no doubt confined to Clause (b) of Sec- tion 40. Once this is so, we see no reason to hold
that this theory of different capacities is not valid or available for the period anterior to April 1, 1985. Accordingly, we hold that even for the period
anterior to April 1, 1985, any interest paid to a partner, who is a partner representing his Hindu undivided family, on the deposit of his
personal/individual funds, does not fall within the mischief of Clause (b) of Section 40. In this view of the matter, we agree with the view taken by
the Rajasthan High Court in GAJANAND POONAM CHAND AND BROTHERS Vs. COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax., that Explanation
2, in the context of Clause (b) of Section 40, is declaratory in nature. Accordingly, we allow this appeal, set aside the judgment of the High Court
and answer the question referred u/s 256 in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.
In the face of the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Brij Mohan Das Laxman Das Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax,
Allahabad, , it goes without saying that the question under reference in the tax case (reference) has to be necessarily answered in favour of the
assessee and against the Revenue and we accordingly answer the same.
So far as the challenge made in the writ petition is concerned, the peti-tioner-assessee therein has to face dismal failure, inasmuch as the
interest payments were made to the partners, in their capacity as kartas representing their respective Hindu undivided families in relation to the
deposits made by them in the firm in such capacity.
For the reasons as above, the tax case (reference) and the writ petition are thus disposed of. There shall, however, be no order as to costs, in
both these actions, on the facts and circumstances of these cases.