9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (7) TMI 350X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... had set up a business jointly, they would be entitled to the benefit of the exemption under Section 10(26) - Whether such rule was per incuriam or, at any rate, no longer good law in view of subsequent Supreme Court pronouncements? - HELD THAT:- In the present appeals, in one of the matters the registered partnership firm has a husband and wife as partners. In the other matters, uterine brothers constitute the partnership firm in each case. Going by the dictum in Mahari Sons and, particularly, the interpretation of the concept of family made therein, it would appear that an association, even if it be a partnership, between a husband and wife or between a brother and another, would be entitled to the same exemption as any of the partners wo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nounced in matters pertaining to the interpretation of a taxing statute and the strict interpretation of an exemption clause in a taxing statute. 2. In Mahari Sons, members of a family, all of them tribals and individually entitled to the benefits under Section 10(26) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961, were engaged in a business and the question that arose was whether the exemption granted under Section 10(26) of the Act was restricted to an individual or whether the same could be extended to a group of individuals, particularly if they were family members. The Gauhati High Court ruled in Mahari Sons that when certain individuals who belonged to the same family had set up a business jointly, they would be entitled to the benefit of the exemption ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e defined in the statute as such other persons cannot be regarded as individuals within the restricted meaning of that word in Section 10(26) of the Act. 5. In such context, both the Tribunal in the order impugned and the Department in course of the present appeals, have referred to Section 2(31) of the Act and Section 184 thereof. The order impugned has also reasoned that since an individual has to be seen distinct from a partnership firm in view of Section 2(31) of the Act, when an assessee is an association of persons belonging to the same scheduled tribe where their incomes accrue within a notified area, such assessee will not be entitled to the benefit under Section 10(26) of the Act. 6. In the present appeals, in one of the matters th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing out the applicability of the dictum in Mahari Sons by virtue of the partners being close relatives. 9. At any rate, none of the Supreme Court judgments referred to in the order impugned by the Tribunal expressly deals with the situation covered by Mahari Sons. The general dicta pertaining to interpretation of a taxing statute and an exemption clause contained in a taxing statute have been relied upon by the Tribunal in the order impugned dated September 13, 2019 to come to a conclusion that the principle enunciated in Mahari Sons no longer holds the field. 10. At the same time, when Constitutional Courts take up challenges to orders passed by a specialised tribunal, such courts have to tread with extreme care and caution. A body that de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
