2019 (12) TMI 200 - AT - Income Tax

Commission paid by the Partnership irm to HUFs - investment of HUF funds in the assessee partnership firm - segregation of rendering of services of contribution of an individual in his individual capacity as partner and as Karta of HUF - HELD THAT - We agree with the contention of D.R. that the rendering of services of contribution of an individual cannot be segregated into two parts, one in the capacity of partner of the assessee firm and secondly in the capacity of Karta of HUF firm but in view of proposition rendered in the case of K.S.Subbiah Pillai 1999 (3) TMI 5 - SUPREME COURT the claim of the assessee firm gets support in the facts and circumstances of the present case. This fact cannot be controverted that both HUF have provided unsecured loan to the assessee partnership firm, which substantiate that the family funds of HUF has been used by the assessee s partnership firm to financially support and enhance its business. When the contribution of an individual, who helps the firm in two capacities viz; first in the capacity of partner and secondly as Karta of HUF cannot be segregated satisfying and clearly establishing the factum of the services rendered towards payment of commission to the HUF but the factum of use of HUF funds by the partnership firm in the form of secured loan in the business of assessee firm, bring home the support of the proposition rendered by Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of K.S.Subbiah Pillai (supra). Therefore, we reached to a logical conclusion that the commission paid by the assessee firm to HUFs is allowable and thus, we direct the Assessing Officer to delete the addition of ₹ 3 lakhs each to both HUF and allow the grounds of appeal of the assessee.

Summary

Issues:
- Allowability of commission paid to HUF of two partners for services rendered in the hands of the firm.
- Interpretation of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K.S.Subbiah Pallai vs CIT, 237 ITR 11 (SC).
- Disallowance of commission paid to HUF by the Assessing Officer.

Issue 1: Allowability of Commission Paid to HUF:
The appeals were filed against the CIT(A)'s order for the assessment years 2012-13 and 2013-14 regarding the allowance of commission paid to the HUF of two partners. The AR argued that the commission paid to the HUFs for services rendered should be considered an allowable business expenditure. Referring to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K.S.Subbiah Pallai vs CIT, it was emphasized that if the remuneration was compensation for services rendered by the individual co-parcener, it should be treated as the income of the individual co-parcener. The AR contended that the commission paid should be allowed as business expenditure due to investments made by the HUFs in the partnership firm, supported by balance sheet evidence.

Issue 2: Interpretation of Supreme Court Decision:
The Tribunal considered the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K.S.Subbiah Pillai, which clarified that remuneration received by the Karta of the HUF due to personal qualifications and exertions should be treated as the income of the individual co-parcener. The Tribunal noted that the investment of HUF funds in the business and the services rendered by the individual co-parcener should determine the nature of the income. The Tribunal analyzed the balance sheets of the recipients and the partnership firm to establish the investment of HUF funds, supporting the claim that the commission paid was a mode of return for financial support to the firm.

Issue 3: Disallowance of Commission by Assessing Officer:
The Assessing Officer disputed the payment of commission to the HUFs, arguing that the same person cannot contribute in two capacities simultaneously. However, the Tribunal, following the Supreme Court's precedent, concluded that the commission paid by the firm to the HUFs was allowable. The Tribunal found that the contributions made by the HUFs financially supported and enhanced the business of the firm, justifying the commission paid as a mode of acknowledgment for the financial support. Therefore, the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to delete the addition of commission paid to the HUFs and allowed the grounds of appeal for both assessment years.

In conclusion, the ITAT Cuttack allowed the appeals filed by the assessee, directing the Assessing Officer to delete the addition of commission paid to the HUFs for both assessment years. The judgment extensively analyzed the interpretation of the Supreme Court decision, emphasizing the treatment of income based on investments and services rendered. The Tribunal upheld the AR's arguments, considering the financial support provided by the HUFs to the partnership firm as a justification for the commission paid.