9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that there was a valid partnership in law. 2. Whether letting out a building and collecting rents amounts to carrying on a business. 3. Whether the income derived from letting out properties should be assessed as income from business or property. Summary: Issue 1: Valid Partnership in Law The primary question was whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that there was a valid partnership in law between Phabiomal Mulchand Mirpuri and his three sons, who owned a building in common and entered into an agreement of partnership to let out the building and share the rents. The Tribunal had directed the Income-tax Officer to grant registration u/s 185(1)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1975-76 and for continuation of the benefit of registration for the year 1976-77. The High Court disagreed with the Tribunal's view, holding that letting out and realising rents is incidental to ownership and does not constitute a business activity. Issue 2: Letting Out Building as Business The Tribunal had held that "business" is a term of wide import and includes activities requiring attention, such as keeping the property in good repair and paying taxes regularly, thus amounting to a continuous and organised activity. However, the High Court found it difficult to accept this submission, stating that letting out and realising rents is by no means doing a business. The court referred to the definition of "partnership" u/s 4 of the Partnership Act, which involves an agreement to carry on business, and concluded that the act of letting out a building does not constitute a business. Issue 3: Income Assessment The High Court noted that the Income-tax Officer had assessed the income derived from letting out the properties as if it was income derived from "business" assessable u/s 28 of the Act, without giving necessary statutory deductions for repairs, municipal taxes, etc., as required for income from property u/s 22 of the Act. The court emphasized that the Income-tax Officer should have computed the income under the head "Property" in accordance with sections 22 to 26 of the Act and considered the application of section 26, which deals with the computation of income from property in the hands of co-owners. Conclusion: The High Court answered the reference in the negative, against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue, concluding that there was no valid partnership in law and that the activity of letting out the building did not constitute a business. The court also highlighted the need for the Commissioner of Income-tax to scrutinize the assessments and exercise revisionary powers if necessary. The request for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court was refused.
|
