1996 (12) TMI 2 - SC - Income Tax

Whether interest paid to a partner on the amounts deposited by him in his individual capacity is hit by clause (b) of section 40 where the partner is a partner not in his individual capacity but as representing a Hindu undivided family (HUF) - in view of Explanation 2 to section 40(b) inserted with effect from 1.4.1985, interest paid to him in his individual capacity even for periods prior to 1.4.1985 cannot be disallowed in the assessment of the firm.

Summary

Issues:
Interpretation of section 40(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 regarding deduction of interest paid to a partner representing a Hindu undivided family.

Analysis:
The main issue in this case was the interpretation of section 40(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, specifically regarding the deduction of interest paid to a partner who represents a Hindu undivided family (HUF). The case involved a partnership firm with a partner who was a karta of and representing his HUF. The firm maintained separate accounts for this partner, crediting profits to his capital account and interest on deposits to his deposit account. The question was whether the interest paid to this partner in his individual capacity was subject to disallowance under section 40(b) as a payment made to a partner.

The Tribunal initially allowed the claim for interest paid on the credit balance in the individual account of the partner representing the HUF. However, the High Court disagreed, stating that the interest amount was rightly disallowed by the Income-tax Officer. The High Court certified the case under section 261 of the Act, leading to further appeal.

The introduction of Explanations 1, 2, and 3 to section 40(b) by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1984, was crucial in determining the outcome of the case. Explanation 2 clarified that where an individual is a partner on behalf of or for the benefit of another person, interest paid to the individual in his individual capacity would not be considered for disallowance under clause (b). The issue was whether this Explanation applied retrospectively to cases before April 1, 1985.

The Rajasthan High Court's view in Gajanand Poonam Chand and Bros. v. CIT was pivotal in the judgment. The court held that Explanation 2 was declaratory in nature and should apply even for assessment years prior to April 1, 1985. This interpretation was based on the understanding that an individual and an HUF are distinct entities for tax purposes, and therefore, interest paid to a partner representing an HUF in his individual capacity should not be disallowed under section 40(b).

The Supreme Court, aligning with the Rajasthan High Court's interpretation, held that interest paid to a partner representing his HUF on personal deposits did not fall within the scope of section 40(b). The court emphasized the legislative recognition of different capacities an individual may hold within a partnership and concluded that Explanation 2 was declaratory in nature, allowing the appeal in favor of the assessee and against the Revenue.