1977 (9) TMI 4 - HC - Income Tax

A Partner, Deemed Income, Income Of HUF, Partner In Firm, Total Income, Undistributed Profits

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the assessee-family was precluded from objecting to the inclusion of deemed dividends in its total income.
2. Whether the Tribunal was justified in excluding the deemed dividends from the total income of the assessee-family.

Analysis:

Issue 1:
The case involved the question of whether the assessee-family, an HUF, was precluded from objecting to the inclusion of deemed dividends in its total income. The ITO had taxed the assessee in respect of the half share of deemed dividends received by a firm in which the assessee's deceased member was a partner. The AAC held that the assessee was precluded from raising this issue due to the second proviso to section 30(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. However, the Tribunal disagreed, stating that the assessee was not a partner of the firm in question. The High Court concurred with the Tribunal's finding, holding that the second proviso did not apply to the assessee-family since it was not a partner of the firm. Therefore, the court answered question No. 1 in the negative and in favor of the assessee.

Issue 2:
Regarding the exclusion of deemed dividends from the total income of the assessee-family, the Tribunal had ruled in favor of the assessee, stating that the deemed income was of a notional character and could not be assessed in the hands of the beneficial partner. However, the High Court disagreed with this view. It held that a partner is entitled to his share of profit from the partnership firm, and if the firm receives any dividend, it becomes part of the partner's income. Since the assessee-family was the beneficial owner of the income from the firm, including the deceased member's share, the court concluded that the amount was assessable in the hands of the assessee-family. Therefore, the court answered question No. 2 in the negative and in favor of the revenue.

In conclusion, the High Court ruled in favor of the assessee on the first issue but in favor of the revenue on the second issue. The judgment highlighted the distinction between the rights of a partner in a firm and the treatment of income derived from partnership interests, ultimately clarifying the tax implications for the assessee-family in this case.