9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the tenancy rights belonged to the assessee-firm or the individual heirs of Shri Harnam Singh. 2. Whether the surplus realized from the transfer of tenancy rights could be included in the assessee-firm's assessment. Detailed Analysis: 1. Tenancy Rights Ownership: The primary issue was whether the tenancy rights belonged to the assessee-firm or the individual heirs of Shri Harnam Singh. The assessee, a registered firm, was carrying on business in paints and varnishes and included three partners, sons of the late Shri Harnam Singh. For the assessment year 1969-70, the firm was assessed on a total income that included a sum received on the transfer of tenancy rights of premises where the firm operated. The Income-tax Officer initially rejected the assessee's claim that this sum was a capital or casual receipt not liable to tax, holding it as a long-term capital gain of the firm. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner supported this view, stating that the tenancy rights were not mentioned in Shri Harnam Singh's will and were thus part of the firm's assets. However, the Tribunal, after a detailed examination and a majority decision, concluded that the tenancy rights originally belonged to Shri Harnam Singh individually and passed to his legal heirs upon his death, not to the assessee-firm. 2. Inclusion of Surplus in Assessment: The Tribunal's decision led to a reference to the High Court, where it was contended by the Department that the tenancy rights belonged to the partnership firm since the rent was being paid by the firm. However, the High Court found it difficult to agree with this submission. The Court noted that the various partnership deeds executed from time to time clearly specified that the tenancy rights and goodwill would belong exclusively to Shri Harnam Singh and not become partnership property. On Shri Harnam Singh's death, the tenancy rights would revert to his legal heirs, not the firm. The Court emphasized that under the law of partnership, individual property remains with the individual partner and does not become partnership property unless explicitly stated. The payment of rent by the firm was seen as payment on behalf of Shri Harnam Singh, who retained the tenancy rights individually. Upon his death, these rights passed to his legal heirs, who then divided the received amount among themselves. Conclusion: The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, affirming that the tenancy rights did not belong to the assessee-firm and any surplus realized from the transfer could not be included in the firm's assessment. The Court also noted that the legal heirs of Shri Harnam Singh were entitled to the sum realized from the transfer of tenancy rights. Consequently, the answer to the referred question was in the affirmative, supporting the Tribunal's stance. The parties were directed to bear their own costs due to the novel nature of the question.
|
