MANDYALA GOVINDU & CO. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ANDHRA PRADESH

CIVIL APPEAL No. 63/1971Supreme Court[1976] 2 S.C.R. 13106 October 1975Bench: 3 JudgesAuthor: V.R. KRISHNA IYER, A.C. GUPTA, S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI7 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What were the facts?

The assessee, Mandyala Govindu & Co., is a firm with three adult partners and one minor admitted to the benefits of the partnership. The partnership deed, executed on January 5, 1959, stipulated profit-sharing ratios: one partner held 31% and the other two adult partners and the minor held 23% each. However, the deed was silent on the apportionment of losses. Clause 9 of the deed stated that partners would act according to its stipulations and the Indian Partnership Act. The firm applied for registration under Section 26A of the Income Tax Act, 1922, which was refused by the Income Tax Officer. The High Court, on a reference, held that registration under Section 26A requires the partnership instrument to specify shares in both profits and losses. The assessee appealed this decision.

What did the Supreme Court hold?

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that while there was a conflict of opinion among High Courts regarding the necessity of explicitly stating loss-sharing ratios in the partnership deed for registration under Section 26A, the appeal would fail on the facts regardless of which view was correct. The Court found that the Income Tax Officer must be able to ascertain the shares of partners in losses. The assessee's contention that Clause 9, read with Section 13(b) of the Partnership Act, satisfied the requirement was untenable. Section 13(b) mandates equal contribution to losses only when partners share profits equally. In this case, profit shares were unequal. While a presumption exists that losses are shared in the same proportion as profits in the absence of agreement, this presumption did not apply here due to the presence of a minor admitted to the benefits of the partnership. Even if adult partners bore losses proportionally to their profit shares, the minor's share of loss remained undistributed, and the deed offered no guidance on how this would be handled. Therefore, there was no means to ascertain how losses were to be apportioned.

What were the issues?

1. Whether Section 26A of the Income Tax Act, 1922, mandates that the instrument of partnership must explicitly specify the respective shares of partners in losses for the firm to be entitled to registration, or if it is sufficient for the proportion of losses to be otherwise ascertainable. 2. If Section 26A does require the proportion of losses to be mentioned in the instrument, does Clause 9 of the partnership deed, read with Section 13(b) of the Partnership Act, satisfy this requirement. Assessee's Arguments: 1. Section 26A does not require the explicit mention of loss-sharing proportions in the partnership deed; it is sufficient if these proportions are ascertainable. 2. Clause 9 of the deed, by referencing the Indian Partnership Act, implicitly satisfies the requirement of specifying loss-sharing proportions, particularly Section 13(b) of the Partnership Act. Revenue's Arguments: The revenue contended, citing High Court decisions, that both profit and loss sharing ratios must be specifically stated in the instrument of partnership to comply with Section 26A.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 26A,Section 13(b),Section 66(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

. . i 131 MANDYALA GOVINDU & CO. v • COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ANDHRA PRADESH October 6, 1975 A [V. R. KRISHNA IYER, A. C. GUPTA ANDS. MURTAZA.FAZAL ALI, JJ.] B Registration of firms-Income Tax Act, 1922-Sec. 26A-Whether share of parlllers in loss to be mentioned in the Partners/zip Deed-Sec. 13 (b) of Part- ners/zip Act-In the aibsence of contract regarding share in loss-Whether to be borne equally or proportionate to profit. · The appellant assessee is a firm, having three partners and one minor admitted to the benefits of the partnership.

One of the partners has 31 % share and the remaining two partners and the minor have 23 % share each in the profit of the firm but the partnership deed is silent about their shares in the losses.

Clauses 9 of the partnership deed provides that the partners are bound to act a·ccording to the provisions of the Indian Partnership Act.

The firm applied for registration under s. 26A of the Income Tax A:t, 1922 which was refused by the Income Tax Officer.

The High Court in a reference under s. 66(1) held that unless the instrument of partnership specified the shares of the partners not only in the profits but also in the l

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 26A

All 40 judgments and leading authorities on Section 26A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →