2016 (6) TMI 1030 - HC - Income Tax

Interest paid to the partners disallowance - whether there is no specific provision for claiming interest paid to the partners on their capital against the income from house property? - Held that - The question whether the business has been closed permanently or there was any intention of resumption of the business is essentially a question of fact and that has to be decided only on the basis of documentary evidence and such other evidences which may be adduced. Similarly, whether interest was authorised by the Partnership Deed is also a question, which was never considered by any of the statutory authorities. At the same time we find some substance in the submission that the income derived by the assessee by letting out the godown may be treated as a business income. In that view of the matter, the matter is remanded to the Assessing Officer. He will consider the questions (a) whether the income can be treated as an income arising out of business; and (b) whether the payment of interest to the partners can be allowed as a permissible deduction. He will decide these questions, after taking such evidence as the assessee may adduce, in accordance with law. The questions formulated at the time of admission of appeal have now become redundant and they need not be answered.

Summary

Issues:
1. Disallowance of interest paid to partners against income from house property.
2. Taxation of interest paid to partners from partnership firm.

Issue 1 - Disallowance of interest paid to partners against income from house property:
The appeal challenged the dismissal of an appeal by the assessee regarding the disallowance of interest paid to partners. The appellant argued that the rental income from letting out a godown should be considered business income, not income from house property. Referring to a judgment, the appellant contended that income derived from leasing business assets should be classified as business income. The appellant claimed that the interest paid to partners was authorized by the Partnership Deed and should be allowed under Section 40(b)(iv) of the Income Tax Act. The revenue argued that the appellant cannot introduce a new argument at this stage, as the case was always presented as income from house property. The revenue relied on a judgment emphasizing that income from leasing assets depends on the intention to resume the business. The court noted that the closure of the business and intention to resume it are factual matters requiring documentary evidence. The court remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer to determine if the income can be treated as business income and if interest payment to partners is a permissible deduction.

Issue 2 - Taxation of interest paid to partners from partnership firm:
The appellant's argument regarding the taxation of interest paid to partners from the partnership firm raised questions about the treatment of such interest for tax purposes. The appellant contended that the interest payment was authorized by the Partnership Deed and should be allowed as a deduction under Section 40(b)(iv). The revenue opposed this argument, stating that the appellant cannot change the case presented previously. The court emphasized that the treatment of interest paid to partners and the nature of income derived from leasing assets are factual matters that require proper consideration and evidence. The court remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer for a detailed examination and decision in accordance with the law.

In conclusion, the court found merit in the appellant's argument that the income from letting out the godown may be considered business income. The court remanded the case for further assessment by the Assessing Officer to determine the nature of income and the deductibility of interest paid to partners. The original questions formulated during the admission of the appeal were deemed redundant and not answered, as the matter required a factual determination. The appeal was disposed of accordingly.