SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
P.N. BHAGWATI, V.D. TULZAPURKAR AND R.S. PATHAK, JJ.
M/s. Malabar Fisheries Co., Appellant
Versus
The Commissioner of Income-tax Kerala, Respondent.
Civil Appeals Nos. 196-199 of 1973
Decided on 19-9-1979.
Advocates appeared
Mr. K.S.Ramamurthy Sr. Advocate (Mr. P. N. Ramalingam and Mr. A.T.M. Sampath, Advocates with him), for Appellant; Mr. B.B. Ahuja and Miss A. Subhashini, Advocates, for Respondent.
* Income-tax Ref Nos. 115-118 of 1970, D/- 14-7-1972 (Ker).
Civil Procedure Code,1908 – Order 30 - Indian Income-tax Act, 1961 – Section 34(3)(b) - Partnership firm - Distribution of assets - Appellant is a dissolved firm represented by one of its erstwhile partners - Firm as originally constituted consisted of four partners and carried on six different businesses in six different names and styles, first business concern was taken over by one of partners, remaining five concerns by two of other partners and fourth partner received a sum in lieu of his respective shares in the assets of all businesses of the firm - It appears that during the four assessment year firm had installed various items of machinery in respect of which it received development rebate in its respective tax assessments under S. 33 of Act - On dissolution of the firm - Income-tax Officer took the view that S.34 (3) (b) of Act applied on ground that there was a sale or transfer of machinery by the firm within period mentioned in that section and accordingly acting under S. 155 (5) of the Act he withdrew development rebate allowed to firm for the said assessment years, amending orders being passed against the dissolved firm - Assessee dissolved firm through Malabar Fisheries Co., v. I. T. Commr. Kerala one of its erstwhile partners preferred appeals against order of the Income-tax Officer withdrawing development rebate but Appellate Assistant Commissioner by his order - Whether the distribution of assets of a firm consequent on its dissolution amounts to a transfer of assets within the meaning of expression – Held, there is yet another reason for rejecting the contention of counsel for Revenue and that is that second condition required to be satisfied for attracting S. 34 (3) (b) cannot be said to have been satisfied in the case - It is necessary that the sale or transfer of assets must be by assessee to a person - Now every dissolution must in point of time be anterior to the actual distribution, division or allotment of the assets that takes place after making accounts and discharging debts and liabilities due by the firm - Upon dissolution assessee firm ceases to exist; then follows the making up of accounts, then discharge of debts and liabilities and thereupon distribution, division or allotment of assets takes place inter se between erstwhile partners by way of mutual adjustment of rights between them - Distribution, division or allotment of assets to the erstwhile partners, is not done by the dissolved firm - In this sense there is no transfer of assets by the assessee (dissolved firm) to any person - It is not possible to accept view of the High Court that distribution of assets effected by a deed takes place instant with dissolution or that it is effected by dissolved firm - In the result court are clearly of the view that S. 34 (3) (b) of Act was not applicable to case and court uphold the view of the Tribunal - Appeals allowed.
JUDGMENT
TULZAPURKAR, J.: —These appeals by special leave raise an interesting question of law whether the distribution of assets of a firm consequent on its dissolution amounts to a transfer of assets within the meaning of the expression "otherwise transferred" occurring in S. 34 (3) (b) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1961, having regard to the definition of transfer in S. 2 (47) of the Act?
2. The facts giving rise to the question lie in a narrow compass. The appellant (M/s. Malabar Fisheries Co.) is a dissolved firm represented by one of its erstwhile partners. The firm as originally constituted on April 1, 1959 consisted of four partners and carried on six different businesses in six different names and styles, namely, (a) Malabar Fisheries Co., (b) Coastal Engineering Co., (c) Cochin Tin Factory, (d) Goodwill Industries, all at Falluruthy, (e) Combine Steel Industries at the Industrial Estate at Olavakkot and (f) Lite Metal Industries at Visakhapatnam in Andhra Pradesh. The firm was dissolved on March 31, 1963 and under the deed of dissolution executed by and between the partners, the first business concern was taken over by one of the partners, the remaining five concerns by two of the other partners and the fourth partner received a sum of Rs. 3,81082/- in lieu of his respective shares in the assets of all the businesses of the firm. It appears that during the four assessment years 1960-61 to 1963-64 the firm had installed various items of machinery in respect of which it received development rebate in its respective tax assessments under S. 33 of the Act. On dissolution of the firm on March 31, 1963, the Income-tax Officer took the view that S.34 (3) (b) of the Act applied on the ground that there was a sale or transfer of the machinery by the firm within the period mentioned in that section and accordingly acting under S. 155 (5) of the Act he withdrew the development rebate allowed to the firm for the said assessment years, the amending orders being passed against the dissolved firm. The assessee i. e., the dissolved firm through 1980 Malabar Fisheries Co., v. I. T. Commr. Kerala one of its erstwhile partners preferred appeals against the order of the Income-tax Officer withdrawing the development rebate but the Appellate Assistant Commissioner by his order dated July 24, 1964, dismissed the appeals holding that S. 155 (5) was rightly resorted to since S. 34 (3) (b) of the Act applied to the case. The matter was carried in further appeals by the dissolved firm to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, Ernakulam, and it was contended that the distribution of the assets of the firm consequent on its dissolution did not amount to a sale or transfer and, therefore, the transaction would not come within the purview of Section 34 (3) (b). The Tribunal by its common order dated January 6, 1970 allowed the appeals holding that the case fell within the principle laid down by this Court in the case of Commr. of Income-tax v. Dewas Cine Corporation (1968) 68 ITR 240 and that there was no question of any sale or transfer within the meaning of Section 34 (3) (b) in a transaction involving the adjustment of the rights of the partners of a dissolved firm.
3. At the instance of the Revenue, the Tribunal referred two questions of law to the High Court for its opinion,namely,
"(1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of this case, the Appellate Tribunal was legally correct in holding that there was no question of sale and that it was only an adjustment of the mutual rights of the partners and that the provisions of Section 36 (3) (sic) were not applicable?
(2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of this case, there was a transfer of assets within the meaning of the words otherwise transferred occurring in S. 34 (3) (b) of the Income-tax Act ?"
The High Court answered the second question in the affirmative and against the assessee and in view of that answer, declined to answer first question as being unnecessary
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.