1983 (2) TMI 11 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues: Valid constitution of a partnership firm with coparceners of a Hindu undivided family, entitlement to registration under the Income Tax Act, status of karta in partnership, applicability of Explanation to s. 185(1) of the I.T. Act.

The judgment addressed the issue of whether a partnership firm, consisting of the karta of a Hindu undivided family (HUF) as one partner and four other coparceners of the same HUF as partners, was validly constituted and entitled to registration under the Income Tax Act. The firm in question was formed by the karta and his major sons, each contributing capital from their separate funds. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) initially refused registration, contending that a valid partnership cannot be formed by a HUF with only some coparceners. However, the Appellate Authority Commission (AAC) and the Tribunal held that the partnership was valid, emphasizing that the coparceners brought in their separate funds, and thus, the firm was entitled to registration under s. 185(1) of the I.T. Act.

The Revenue appealed, arguing that a karta of a HUF could not enter into a partnership with some coparceners, even if they contributed capital from their own funds. The Revenue's contention was based on the belief that the karta should be considered a benamidar for the other partners, invoking the Explanation to s. 185(1) of the I.T. Act. However, the Tribunal rejected this argument, citing precedents that allowed a coparcener to enter into a partnership with the karta using their separate property without necessitating a division in the HUF. The Tribunal's decision was supported by the Privy Council's ruling in Lachhman Das v. CIT [1948] 16 ITR 35 (PC), endorsed by the Supreme Court in Firm Bhagat Ram Mohanlal v. CEPT [1956] 29 ITR 521, and followed by various High Courts.

The judgment highlighted that the karta's status as a partner did not make him a benamidar for the other coparceners, as he also held an interest in the HUF. It emphasized that the business conducted by the firm was not solely that of the HUF, and the partnership was not a mere facade. Consequently, the court upheld the Tribunal's decision, affirming the validity of the partnership firm and its entitlement to registration under the I.T. Act. The court ruled in favor of the assessee, directing the Revenue to bear the costs.