9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the Tribunal was right in restricting the claim of the assessee to Rs. 10,00,000 as a whole and in not going into the question whether any part of it was allowable as a revenue expense. 2. Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that there is no material on the record on the basis of which it may be possible to split up the quantum of compensation in respect of each of the various items. 3. Whether the payment of Rs. 10,00,000 or any part thereof was not a revenue expense allowable to the assessee-firm. 4. Whether the sums of Rs. 1,50,000 and Rs. 2,00,000 received by the outgoing partners were business receipts and includible in the computation of their income. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: At the time of the hearing, no arguments were addressed on questions Nos. 1 and 2 by the learned counsel for the assessee. Consequently, these questions were answered in favor of the Revenue and against the firm. Issue 2: Similarly, no arguments were presented for this issue, and it was answered in favor of the Revenue and against the firm. Issue 3: The Tribunal held that the payment of Rs. 10,00,000 was in consideration of an enduring benefit and thus not a revenue expense. The assessee contended that the amount was paid for the purchase of quota rights and its entitlement, which should be considered a revenue expense. The Tribunal, however, did not find any material on record to split the compensation into various items. The High Court observed that the Tribunal had out-stepped its jurisdiction by refusing to submit a supplementary statement, and there was sufficient material on record to make a determination. The High Court noted that the amount of Rs. 10,00,000 was paid to the outgoing partners either for their share of the capital assets or for estimated profits due to the increase in market price of raw materials and quota rights. It was held that the payment made to a retiring partner by the continuing partners could not have two different characteristics for the two parties. The High Court concluded that if the amount received by the retiring partners was a revenue receipt, it would be a revenue expense for the continuing firm, and vice versa. The Tribunal's reliance on CIT v. Gangadhar Baijnath was found to be misplaced. The High Court distinguished the facts of the present case from Gangadhar Baijnath, noting that the partnership in question had been constituted for the manufacture of non-ferrous items and had continued for about 16 years. The dissolution of this partnership could not be equated to the cancellation of a contract entered into in the ordinary course of business. The High Court further noted that the balance-sheets and other documents provided by the assessee indicated that the amount of Rs. 10,00,000 was paid due to the difference in market value of the closing stock and estimated future profits. The machinery, plant, furniture, lands, and buildings were transferred at their written down value, and each retiring partner received amounts according to the credit or debit balance in their accounts. The High Court concluded that no part of the Rs. 10,00,000 was paid for acquiring any capital asset of enduring benefit and was instead paid for the business purposes of the firm. The High Court applied the test laid down by the Supreme Court in Empire Jute Co. Ltd. v. CIT, which considers the nature of the advantage in a commercial sense. The Court held that the amount paid was revenue expenditure, as it was incurred for facilitating the assessee's trading operations without affecting the fixed capital. Issue 4: The sums of Rs. 1,50,000 and Rs. 2,00,000 received by the outgoing partners were treated as business receipts and included in their income computation. The High Court observed that the Tribunal's decision was based on the incorrect premise that the amount paid was for the capital assets. Instead, the amount was paid for the estimated profits and future benefits from quota rights and import licenses, making it a revenue receipt. The High Court rejected the Revenue's reliance on various cases, distinguishing the facts and emphasizing that the amount paid was not for acquiring the share of the partners in the firm but for the estimated profits and future benefits. In conclusion, the High Court answered the questions in ITR Nos. 39 and 40 of 1976 in the affirmative, in favor of the Revenue and against the assessee. Question No. 3 in ITR No. 48 of 1976 was answered in the negative, in favor of the assessee and against the Revenue. No order as to costs was made. Separate Judgment: Sandhawalia C.J. concurred with the judgment.
|
