2002 (8) TMI 80 - HC - Income Tax

Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the Tribunal was right in law in holding that on the reconstitution of the firm M. K. Krishna Chetty by the deed dated September 6 1976 there is a gift by each of the erstwhile partners (assessees) in favour of the incoming partner Asoka Betelnut Co. Pvt. Ltd. attracting levy of tax as held by the Gift-tax Officer? - In this case even though there is capital contribution by the newly inducted partner the extent of the contribution has been found to be not commensurate with the value of the benefit conferred on that newly inducted partner by reason of reduction in the shares of the continuing partners in their share of the profits. Such reduction resulted in a gift. The question referred to us is therefore answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.

Summary

Issues:
- Assessment of gift tax liability on reconstitution of a firm with a newly admitted partner.
- Determination of whether the reduction in shares of existing partners in favor of the new partner constitutes a gift.

Analysis:
The High Court of Madras addressed the issue of gift tax liability arising from the reconstitution of a firm in the assessment year 1977-78. The key question was whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that the reconstitution of the firm, with a company admitted as a partner, resulted in a gift by the original partners to the new partner, attracting tax liability. The firm, initially comprising three partners, was reconstituted by admitting a company as the fourth partner. The shares of the existing partners were reduced, and the new partner was given an eighteen per cent share in the firm's profit and loss, with capital contribution fixed at eighteen per cent. The Tribunal found that the reduction in shares of the existing partners in favor of the new partner constituted a gift, despite the capital contribution by the new partner.

In determining the value of the gift, the Assessing Officer had the firm's building valued and computed the difference between one-third and one-fourth of that value as the gift made by each original partner to the company. The Tribunal, while affirming the existence of a gift, considered only the difference between the share given to the new partner in profit and loss and the share at the time of dissolution. The High Court noted that the methodology for valuing the gift was not under consideration, focusing solely on the legality of the Tribunal's decision regarding the gift resulting from the reconstitution of the firm.

The court relied on legal precedents, including the Supreme Court case of CGT v. Chhotalal Mohanlal, where the admission of a minor partner resulted in a gift due to the reduction in shares of existing partners. Referring to the case of M. K. Kuppuraj, the court emphasized that even with capital contribution by the new partner, if it was not commensurate with the benefit received from the reduction in shares of existing partners, a gift could be deemed to have occurred. Ultimately, the court ruled in favor of the Revenue, holding that the reduction in shares of existing partners in favor of the new partner constituted a gift, attracting tax liability.