1970 (10) TMI 25 - HC - Income Tax

Whether on the true interpretation of the partnership deed, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee did not carry on any business activities and that it was not liable to be taxed under the Indian Income-tax Act,1922 - Tribunal was right in observing that the association formed by the ice manufacturers in the present case was not a partnership concern, as it was not carrying on any business activity within the meaning of section 4 of the Indian Partnership Act, and as such it was not liable to be taxed under the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the assessee carried on any business activities.
2. Whether the assessee was liable to be taxed under the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922.
3. Whether the association formed by the ice manufacturers constituted a "partnership" under Section 4 of the Indian Partnership Act.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Whether the assessee carried on any business activities:
The Tribunal concluded that the assessee did not carry on any business activity. It merely received defined contributions from its members, which it redistributed to them at the end of the year. There was complete identity between the persons who made such contributions and those to whom they were redistributed. The Tribunal found that the assessee did not derive any income, profit, or gain.

2. Whether the assessee was liable to be taxed under the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922:
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's appeal and determined its income as nil for both periods in question. The Tribunal held that the assessee did not derive any income, profit, or gain, and thus, it was not liable to be taxed under the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The High Court affirmed this view, stating that the contributions made by the members went to a common pool and were distributed among them at the end of the year. The association was formed to ensure that ice was sold at a uniform rate and to prevent undercutting in the price of ice.

3. Whether the association formed by the ice manufacturers constituted a "partnership" under Section 4 of the Indian Partnership Act:
The High Court examined the partnership deed and the activities carried on by the association. The definition of "partnership" under Section 4 of the Indian Partnership Act includes three elements: (a) an agreement entered into by all persons concerned, (b) to share the profits of the business, and (c) the business must be carried on by all or any of the persons acting for all. The High Court found that the association did not carry on any business activity. The various proprietors of the factories ran them at their own expense and risk and sold the ice in the open market independently. The association merely fixed the selling price of the ice and did not engage in purchasing or selling ice. The High Court concluded that the association was a mutual association and not a partnership, as it did not carry on any business activity within the meaning of Section 4 of the Indian Partnership Act.

Conclusion:
The High Court held that the Tribunal was right in observing that the association formed by the ice manufacturers was not a partnership concern, as it was not carrying on any business activity. Consequently, the assessee was not liable to be taxed under the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The question referred to the High Court was answered in the affirmative, with no order as to costs.