Remuneration and interest received by an individual partner from a partnership firm can be subjected to the presumptive taxation Under Section 44AD?

Submit your Comments

Contents

Remuneration and interest received by an individual partner from a partnership firm can be subjected to the presumptive taxation Under Section 44AD? - 2020 (12) TMI 994 - MADRAS HIGH COURT, Dated 23.12.2020

Introduction

The decision rendered by the Madras High Court on 23-12-2020 addresses the interpretation and application of Section 44AD of the Income Tax Act, 1961, particularly in the context of whether remuneration and interest received by an individual partner from a partnership firm can be subjected to the presumptive taxation regime under this section. The case arises from an appeal by an assessee who, as a partner in several partnership firms, claimed the benefit of presumptive taxation u/s 44AD for the remuneration and interest received from those firms. The judgment is significant as it clarifies the scope of Section 44AD, the definitions of "eligible assessee," "eligible business," "turnover," and "gross receipts," and their interplay with other provisions such as Section 28(v) and Section 40(b) of the Act. The ruling has substantial implications for the treatment of partnership income and the boundaries of presumptive taxation, making it a key precedent in Indian tax jurisprudence.

The case sits at the confluence of statutory interpretation, the legislative intent behind presumptive taxation for small businesses, and the structural separation between the income of a partnership firm and that of its partners. The decision also reflects the judiciary's approach to the purposive construction of tax statutes, aiming to balance legislative objectives with the prevention of tax avoidance.

Key Legal Issues

Whether remuneration and interest received by an individual partner from a partnership firm constitute "business income" eligible for presumptive taxation under Section 44AD of the Income Tax Act, 1961?
Whether such remuneration and interest can be regarded as "gross receipts" or "turnover" of the individual partner for the purposes of Section 44AD?
Whether only remuneration and salary received from a firm, to the extent eligible under Section 40(b), would be considered as profits and gains of business or profession of the recipient partner under Section 28(v) ?
Whether the legislative intent behind Section 44AD supports the inclusion of such receipts within its ambit?

Detailed Issue-wise Analysis

1. Scope of Section 44AD and Its Applicability

Section 44AD is a special provision that allows eligible assessees engaged in eligible businesses to declare income on a presumptive basis, calculated as a percentage of their turnover or gross receipts. The provision was introduced to reduce the compliance burden for small businesses and to bring more small taxpayers within the tax net.

The court meticulously analyzed the language of Section 44AD, emphasizing the four prerequisites for its application:

The assessee must be an "eligible assessee" (individual, HUF, or firm, but not LLP).
The assessee must be engaged in an "eligible business" (not being the business of plying, hiring, or leasing goods carriages, which is covered u/s 44AE).
The total turnover or gross receipts must not exceed the prescribed limit (Rs. 2 crores at the relevant time).
The presumptive income is computed as 8% of turnover or gross receipts.

The court observed that the provision is designed for small businesses with actual business operations, not for partners who merely receive remuneration and interest from a firm. The key issue was whether such receipts can be treated as "turnover" or "gross receipts" arising from business carried on by the individual partner.

2. Interpretation of "Turnover" and "Gross Receipts"

The court relied on the interpretation of "turnover" as the aggregate amount for which sales are effected or services rendered by an enterprise. This definition, as endorsed by the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (ICAI), was pivotal. The court noted:

"The word 'turnover' for the purpose of the clause may be interpreted to mean the aggregate amount for which sales are effected or services rendered by an enterprise, whereas in the case of the assessee, neither he has performed any sales nor rendered any services but merely receives remuneration and interest from the firm..."

Thus, the court rejected the argument that remuneration and interest received by a partner could be equated with "turnover" or "gross receipts" of a business carried on by the partner.

The reasoning is reinforced by the fact that the partnership firm, not the individual partner, carries on the business. The firm's turnover and receipts are distinct from those of the partner. The partner's income from the firm arises from the partnership agreement and is already debited in the firm's profit and loss account, precluding its treatment as the partner's business turnover.

3. Section 28(v) and Section 40(b): Nature of Partner's Income

Section 28(v) provides that interest, salary, bonus, commission, or remuneration received by a partner from the firm is chargeable as "profits and gains of business or profession" in the hands of the partner. Section 40(b) governs the deductibility of such payments in the hands of the firm.

The court clarified that while Section 28(v) deems such receipts as business income for the partner, it does not convert them into "turnover" or "gross receipts" of the partner's independent business. The Tribunal's observation was quoted with approval:

"...only remuneration and salary received from a firm to the extent eligible u/s 40(b) of the Act would be considered as profits and gains of the business or profession of the recipient partner."

The court further explained that Section 40(b) is structured as a negative provision, prohibiting deduction of certain payments, but allows specified remuneration and interest to partners as deductible. This mechanism prevents double taxation and ensures that the partner is not denied reasonable compensation for services or capital provided to the firm. However, it does not create a separate business or turnover in the partner's hands.

The judgment also distinguished the decision in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Ramniklal Kothari - 1969 (3) TMI 1 - Supreme Court, noting that it was rendered in the context of the 1922 Act and dealt with different statutory provisions. The court held that the ratio of that decision could not be applied to the present facts, as the structure and purpose of Section 44AD are distinct.

4. Legislative Intent and CBDT Circulars

The court placed significant reliance on the legislative history and the intent behind Section 44AD, as elucidated in the Finance Minister's Budget Speech (1992), CBDT Circular No. 636 dated 31.08.1992, and Circular No. 5/2010 dated 03.06.2010. The rationale for introducing and subsequently expanding Section 44AD was to facilitate compliance for small businesses, particularly those outside the tax net, by allowing them to opt for a simple presumptive taxation scheme.

The court quoted the Circular:

"...A presumptive income scheme for small taxpayers lowers the compliance cost for such taxpayers and also reduces the administrative burden on the tax machinery. In view of the above, to expand the scope of presumptive taxation to all businesses, the existing section 44AD has been substituted by a new section 44AD."

The focus of the scheme is on businesses with actual turnover or gross receipts, not on passive income streams such as remuneration or interest from partnership firms.

The court also referenced Section 44AF (retail business) and Section 44ADA (professionals), both of which use the terms "turnover" or "gross receipts" in relation to business or professional activity conducted by the assessee. This supports the conclusion that Section 44AD is intended for those actually carrying on business, not merely deriving income from a partnership.

5. Judicial Reasoning and Application of Principles

The court's reasoning is structured around the principle that statutory provisions must be interpreted in light of their purpose and context. The court observed:

"The intention is clear that it was made taking note of the fact that there has been substantial increase in small businesses who earns substantial income are outside the tax-net. Precisely for such reason, the assessee opting for presumptive rate of tax provision are exempted from maintenance of books of accounts related to such business as required u/s 44AA of the Act."

The court further emphasized that if remuneration and interest received by a partner were to be treated as "gross receipts" eligible for Section 44AD, it would defeat the legislative intent and open the door to unintended tax benefits.

The court also highlighted that Section 44AD(2) deems deductions u/ss 30 to 38 as already allowed, but conspicuously omits Section 28(v), reinforcing the view that partner's income from the firm is not within the scope of Section 44AD.

In conclusion, the court found that the Assessing Officer, CIT(A), and Tribunal had all correctly rejected the assessee's claim. The substantial questions of law were answered against the assessee and in favor of the revenue.

Key Holdings and Reasoning

The court's key holdings can be summarized as follows:

Remuneration and interest received by a partner from a partnership firm do not constitute "turnover" or "gross receipts" of an independent business carried on by the partner. The partner is not carrying on any business in his individual capacity; the business is carried on by the firm.
Section 44AD applies only to actual business activities carried on by the assessee. The benefit of presumptive taxation cannot be extended to passive receipts such as remuneration and interest from a partnership firm.
Section 28(v) deems certain receipts as business income, but does not convert them into turnover or gross receipts for purposes of Section 44AD.
The legislative intent behind Section 44AD is to benefit small businesses with actual turnover or receipts, not partners receiving income from a firm's business.
CBDT circulars and the statutory scheme reinforce the above interpretation, and the court's reasoning is consistent with the purpose and context of the provision.

The court's analysis is thorough, addressing each argument advanced by the assessee and revenue, and grounding its conclusions in statutory language, legislative history, and established principles of statutory interpretation.

Conclusion

The Madras High Court's decision provides a clear and authoritative interpretation of Section 44AD, holding that remuneration and interest received by a partner from a partnership firm cannot be treated as turnover or gross receipts for the purposes of presumptive taxation under this section. The judgment underscores the distinction between business income arising from actual business activities and income derived from partnership arrangements. By aligning the interpretation of Section 44AD with its legislative intent, the court has prevented the potential misuse of the presumptive taxation scheme and reinforced the principle that beneficial provisions must be construed strictly.

The ruling is likely to influence future assessments and litigation involving the scope of presumptive taxation, especially in cases where partners seek to claim such benefits on partnership income. It may prompt legislative or administrative clarification if there is a desire to extend presumptive taxation to such receipts, but as the law stands, the position is now clear. Tax professionals and assessees must carefully consider the nature of receipts and the statutory framework before seeking the benefit of Section 44AD.

The decision also serves as a reminder of the necessity for precision in statutory drafting and the importance of adhering to the legislative purpose in tax law interpretation. The court's reliance on circulars, explanatory memoranda, and established definitions reflects best practices in judicial reasoning and provides a robust template for similar cases.

Full Text:

2020 (12) TMI 994 - MADRAS HIGH COURT