9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether Messrs. Venkata Narasimha Rao & Co. and Messrs. Raja Fertilisers can be treated as two separate firms and distinct assessable entities. Summary: Issue 1: Whether Messrs. Venkata Narasimha Rao & Co. and Messrs. Raja Fertilisers can be treated as two separate firms and distinct assessable entities. The Income-tax Officer, Tenali, aggregated the income of Messrs. Venkata Narasimha Rao & Co. and Messrs. Raja Fertilisers for the assessment year 1966-67, treating them as one firm. The reasons included identical partners with equal shares, similar business activities, interlacing of finances, and the initial capital for Messrs. Raja Fertilisers originating from Messrs. Venkata Narasimha Rao & Co. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner upheld this view, but the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal disagreed, stating there was no legal bar to the existence of two firms with identical partners and no interlacing of finances. The High Court examined the definitions and principles under the Indian Partnership Act and the Income-tax Act. It emphasized that a firm has no legal existence apart from its partners and is merely a compendious name to describe its partners. The court referred to several precedents, including Commissioner of Income-tax v. A. W. Figgies & Co., Dulichand Laxminarayan v. Commissioner of Income-tax, and Vissonji Sons and Co. v. Commissioner of Income-tax, which supported the view that identical partners in two firms essentially constitute one firm in law. The court also noted the distinction made by Chagla C.J. in Jesingbhai Ujamshi v. Commissioner of Income-tax, which allowed for the possibility of common partners constituting two separate firms, but ultimately found the observations of Beaumont C.J. in Vissonji Sons and Co. v. Commissioner of Income-tax more persuasive. The High Court concluded that the same combination of identical persons carrying on two businesses under different names should be treated as one firm for income-tax purposes. It emphasized that the firm, though a taxable unit under the Income-tax Act, does not acquire a legal personality distinct from its partners. Conclusion: The High Court answered the question in favor of the revenue, holding that Messrs. Venkata Narasimha Rao & Co. and Messrs. Raja Fertilisers should be treated as one firm for the purposes of assessment to tax. There was no order as to costs, and the advocate's fee was set at Rs. 250.
|
