SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1989 Supreme(P&H) 185

PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Gokal Chand Mital and S.S.Sodhi JJ.
Hindustan Steel Forgings
Versus
Commissioner Of Income-tax
Income tax Reference No. 43 of 1981,
Decided On : MARCH 2, 1989

Interest paid to a partner in one capacity cannot be confused with another capacity of the recipient of the interest.

Headnote:

INCOME TAX - Section 40(b) - Interest paid to partners in representative capacity - Clarification by amendment - Retrospective effect - Circular of Central Board of Direct Taxes - Binding on Department - Interpretation of Section 40(b) before amendment - Decisions of High Courts - Full Bench decision of Madhya Pradesh High Court - Followed.

Fact of the Case:

The assessee-firm paid interest to its partners, who were also kartas of their respective Hindu undivided families, on their individual accounts. The Income-tax Officer disallowed the deduction of the interest paid, holding that it was hit by the provisions of Section 40(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Tribunal agreed with the Income-tax Officer.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the amendment to Section 40(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1984, was only clarificatory and that the provision, as it existed before the amendment, was to be read in the light of the amended provision. The court also held that the circular issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes, [1984] 149 ITR (St.) 127, was binding on the Department and that the assessees were entitled to take the benefit of the same.

Issues: Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal erred in law in disallowing under Section 40(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, interest aggregating to Rs. 12,840 paid by the firm to the three individuals who were partners on behalf of their Hindu undivided families as kartas, on their deposits ?

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the interest paid to the partners in their representative capacity was not hit by the provisions of Section 40(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The court relied on the amendment to Section 40(b) by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1984, and the circular issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes, [1984] 149 ITR (St.) 127.

Final Decision: The court answered the referred question in favour of the assessee and in the affirmative with no order as to costs.

Judgment

Gokal Chand Mital, J.

1. Chiranji Lal, Mangat Rai and Jiwan were partners of Hindustan Steel Forgoings, Rajpura, the assessee, in their capacity as kartas of their respective Hindu undivided families. They had their personal accounts with the assessee in which they had advanced money in their individual capacity and during the accounting period relevant to the assessment year 1978-79, the assessee paid interest to them on their individual accounts totalling Rs. 12,840. Before the Income-tax Officer, the assessee claimed deduction of the interest paid but the Income-tax Officer disallowed the same on the ground that it was hit by the provisions of Section 40(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called "the Act"), because the representative capacity of the partners could not be taken note of and the interest paid would be considered as having been paid to the partners, The Appellate Assistant Commissioner agreed with the Income-tax Officer and so also the Tribunal. On the aforesaid facts, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh, has referred the following question for our opinion.

"Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal erred in law in disallowing under Section 40(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, interest aggregating to Rs. 12,840 paid by the firm to the three individuals who were partners on behalf of their Hindu undivided families as kartas, on their deposits ?"

2. Section 40(b) of the Act, as it stood in the assessment year, was interpreted by different High Courts on similar facts and there were divergent opinions. By the insertion of the Explanations to the provisions by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1984, which came into force with effect from April 1, 1985, and as a result of Explanation 2, Clause (i), it was provided that interest paid by the firm to an individual or by an individual to the firm otherwise than as a partner in a representative capacity, shall not be taken into account for the purposes of Clause (b). It is undisputed that if, after April 1, 1985, the interest is paid by an assessee-firm to an individual who is a partner in the assessee-firm as karta of his Hindu undivided family, then Section 40(b) would not apply and the assessee-firm would be entitled to claim deduction under Section 37 of the Act. The aforesaid amendment was taken notice of by the Central Board of Direct Taxes and it issued a circular which is also found printed in the Statutes Section of [1984] 149 ITR 127. Under the heading "Reducing litigation", para 2 and its sub-para (b) are relevant for reproduction:

"2. A number of amendments have been made to bring out the legislative intention more clearly so that further controversy and litigation regarding the true intent and purport of these provisions is avoided. To illustrate : ... (b) It has also been clarified that where a person is a partner in his representative capacity, interest paid to him in his individual capacity will not be disallowed under the above mentioned provisions and vice versa."

3. It is not disputed, in view of the authoritative decision of the Supreme Court, that such like circulars are binding on the Department and the assessees are entitled to take the benefit of the same. A reading of para 2 shows that by the amendment, the Legislature intended to state the law more clearly (underlined* to put emphasis) so that further controversy and litigation regarding the true intent and purport (underlined* to put emphasis) of these provisions is avoided. To illustrate the meaning of para 2, three illustrations were added and the illustration relevant for us, is illustration (b). A reading of the same shows that the amendment has clarified that where a person is a partner in his representative capacity, interest paid to him in his individual capacity will not be disallowed under the abovementioned provisions and vice versa. Therefore, it is clear that the amendment brought in by the Amendment Act, 1984, was only clarificatory

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top