9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Deductibility of Rs. 24,000 paid by the assessee to Hashmatunnisa Begum from the assessee's share income from the partnership firm, M/s. Kamal Enterprises. 2. Availability of material before the Tribunal to conclude that the sum of Rs. 24,000 paid to Hashmatunnisa Begum was adjusted towards the balance consideration of Rs. 2,00,000 due to her. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Deductibility of Rs. 24,000 as a Deduction from Assessee's Share Income The court examined whether the sum of Rs. 24,000 paid by the assessee to Hashmatunnisa Begum was allowable as a deduction from the assessee's share income from the partnership firm, M/s. Kamal Enterprises. The assessee, holding a 25% share in the partnership, paid Rs. 24,000 as interest to Hashmatunnisa Begum, the original owner of the cinema theatre leased by the partnership firm. The Income-tax Officer initially allowed this deduction, but the Commissioner of Income-tax revised this order, stating that the firm, not the individual partners, was intended to be the owner of the property. The Tribunal upheld this view, stating that section 67(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was not applicable as there was no borrowing by the assessee for investment in the firm. The court noted that the assessee did not borrow Rs. 2 lakhs but paid Rs. 24,000 as interest on the unpaid purchase money, which was part of the agreement dated January 8, 1971. The court referred to section 37(1) of the Act, which allows deductions for expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively for business purposes. The court found that the interest payment was for the business purpose and thus allowable under section 37(1). The court also cited the Supreme Court ruling in Bombay Steam Navigation Co. (1953) Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT, where interest on unpaid purchase money was allowed as a deduction, reinforcing the view that the interest paid by the assessee was for business purposes. Issue 2: Material Before the Tribunal for Adjustment Conclusion The court addressed whether there was any material before the Tribunal to conclude that the sum of Rs. 24,000 paid to Hashmatunnisa Begum was adjusted towards the balance consideration of Rs. 2,00,000 due to her. The Tribunal had held that there was no mention in the partnership deed or any other document to support the contention that the Rs. 24,000 represented interest on the sum of Rs. 2 lakhs due by the firm. The court, however, found that the liability for the unpaid purchase money was that of the seven individuals who later formed the partnership, and not the firm itself. The agreement and lease deed indicated that the liability was joint and several among the individuals, not the partnership firm. Based on this, the court concluded that the interest payment was indeed an allowable deduction under section 37(1) of the Act, and therefore, the first question was answered in favor of the assessee. The court declined to answer the second question, stating it did not arise for decision based on the facts of the case. Conclusion: The court ruled that the interest payment of Rs. 24,000 by the assessee to Hashmatunnisa Begum was an allowable deduction under section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and answered the first question in favor of the assessee. The second question was deemed not to arise for decision.
|
