2023 (12) TMI 982 - HC - Income Tax

Revision u/s 264 - Seeking revision since the payment of interest in excess of 12% to a partner disallowed in the hands of partnership firm - HELD THAT - Under the Income Tax Act, the firm and the individual partners are different entities. The disallowance of expenditure in the case of one entity does not entitle the other entity (recipient) to claim deduction of the disallowed expenditure. In this case assessee has actually received interest and obtained benefit to that extent. In view of the above, the petition u/s. 264 of the assessee considered devoid of any merit and hereby rejected. Therefore, there is no scope for interfering with the Impugned Order in the present writ petition.

Summary

Issues involved:
The petitioner challenges the order passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-8, Chennai under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 regarding the disallowance of interest on capital contribution made by the firm M/s. Selvam Motors to the petitioner, who is a partner.

Summary:
The petitioner contended that the disallowed amount of Rs. 11,90,315/- should be deleted from the re-assessment order as per the proviso to Section 28(v) of the Act. The petitioner argued that the purpose of the proviso has been defeated by the impugned order. On the other hand, the respondents argued that the disallowance made in the firm's assessment cannot be revised in the individual partner's assessment.

The petitioner, a partner in M/s. Selvam Motors, received interest on capital contribution. The dispute arose regarding the disallowance of a portion of this interest by the Assessing Officer in the firm's assessment. The petitioner claimed a deduction based on the proviso to Section 28(v) of the Act, which was partly allowed and partly disallowed in the re-assessment order.

The petitioner filed an appeal against the re-assessment order, but opted to settle under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Subsequently, the appeal was dismissed as infructuous. The petitioner then filed an application under Section 264 of the Act to revise the assessment order, which was rejected by the impugned order.

The Court held that the firm and individual partners are distinct entities, and the disallowance in the firm's assessment does not entitle the partner to claim a deduction. The petition under Section 264 was considered devoid of merit and dismissed. The Court found no grounds to interfere with the impugned order and dismissed the writ petition.

The Court emphasized the separate legal identities of the firm and partners, concluding that the petitioner had received the interest and benefited from it. Therefore, the writ petition was dismissed, with no costs awarded.