1997 (2) TMI 29 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Justification of the Income-tax Officer's disallowance of commission paid to retired partners.
2. Sustainability of the Appellate Tribunal's view on the commission not being the income of the assessee-firm due to overriding title.

Summary:

Issue 1: Justification of the Income-tax Officer's Disallowance
The Income-tax Officer disallowed a sum of Rs. 23,293 being the commission paid to the retired partners, claiming it was not an admissible item of expenditure. The assessee-firm argued that this amount represented expenditure incurred for the purpose of its business. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) held that the right to receive the commission vested with the retired partners due to an overriding title created by the deed of retirement dated March 31, 1973. The Tribunal upheld this view, stating that the continuing partners had no right to retain the commission, as it was earned prior to the retirement of the partners and was paid out of obligation imposed by the deed of retirement.

Issue 2: Sustainability of the Appellate Tribunal's View on Overriding Title
The Tribunal concluded that the commission income was diverted by an overriding title before it reached the assessee-firm. The firm acted as a trustee for the retired partners, collecting the commission on their behalf. The Supreme Court's decision in CIT v. Sitaldas Tirathdas [1961] 41 ITR 367 was cited, which established that income diverted by an overriding title before reaching the assessee is deductible. The Tribunal's decision was supported by the fact that the firm had no right over the income and acted merely as a collector of others' income.

Conclusion:
The High Court affirmed the Tribunal's decision, holding that the commission paid to the retired partners was not includible in the total income of the assessee-firm. The court emphasized that the firm received the commission as a trustee for the retired partners, and the income was diverted by overriding title before it reached the assessee. The court answered both questions in the affirmative and against the Department, awarding costs of Rs. 500 to the assessee.