COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, MADHYA PRADESH, A NAGPUR vs. SETH GOVINDRAM SUGAR MILLS LTD.

CIVIL APPEAL No. 38/1964Supreme Court[1965] 3 S.C.R. 48826 March 1965Bench: 3 JudgesAuthor: K. SUBBA RAO, J.C. SHAH, S.M. SIKRI OF INCOME11 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Supreme Court hold?

The Supreme Court held that the High Court was wrong in its finding that the partnership business was carried on by the representatives of the two families after the death of one of the kartas. A joint Hindu family as such cannot be a partner, but its karta can enter into a partnership with the karta of another family. Upon the death of one of two partners, the partnership automatically comes to an end. Section 42(c) of the Partnership Act, 1932, is not applicable to a partnership of two partners where one dies, as it applies only to partnerships with more than two partners. Section 31 of the Partnership Act, 1932, presupposes the subsistence of a partnership and does not apply to a dissolved partnership. However, due to a concession by the appellant (revenue) that a partnership existed from December 13, 1949, when one of the minor sons became a major, the status of the assessee was held to be that of a firm for the assessment year 1950-51. The Court confirmed the finding that a partnership came into existence only after December 13, 1949. The Tribunal's conclusion that parties could not be regarded as partners was deemed a misdirection in law.

What were the facts?

Two joint Hindu families, represented by their kartas, entered into a partnership in 1943 to run a sugar mill. The partnership deed stipulated that the death of a partner would not dissolve the firm, and the deceased's legal heir or nominee would take their place. One karta died in 1945, leaving behind three widows and two minor sons. The other karta continued the business. For the assessment year 1950-51, the firm sought registration based on the 1943 agreement. The Income-tax Officer, Appellate Assistant Commissioner, and Tribunal held that the partnership dissolved upon the karta's death. The High Court, however, ruled that the business was carried on by the representatives of the two families after the death. The Supreme Court heard appeals concerning the firm's status for assessment year 1950-51.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, for the assessment year 1950-51, the assessee, "Seth Govindram Sugar Mills, Mahidpur Road, Proprietor Nandlal Bachhulal, Jaora", was an Association of Persons or a firm within the meaning of Section 16(1)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1922? (Mixed law and fact) 2. Whether the order of the Appellate Tribunal was illegal due to an error of record and omission to consider relevant material? (Mixed law and fact) Assessee's Contentions: The assessee argued that the partnership continued after the death of one karta, with the legal heirs or nominees stepping in as per the partnership deed. They relied on the High Court's finding that the business was carried on by the representatives of the two families. Revenue's Contentions: The revenue contended that the partnership dissolved upon the death of one of the two kartas, as a joint Hindu family as such cannot be a partner, and the introduction of new partners or representatives was not validly established until a later date. They argued that the High Court erred in its finding.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 16(1)(b),Section 42(c),Section 31

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, MADHYA PRADESH, A NAGPUR v. SETH GOVINDRAM SUGAR MILLS LTD.

March 26, 1965 JK. SUBBA RAO, J.C. SHAH ANDS. M. SIKRI, JJ.J . Partnership Act (9 of 1932), ss. 31 and 42(c)-Sco:oe of-Two joint Hindu families-Partmership between-When po.i;sfbie--!nconie-ta:c Act (11 of 1922), s. 164(1). · A joint Hindu family consisting of two branches owned a sugar mill. After partition, the two kartas entered into a partnership in 1943. to carry on the business of the sugar mill. The two partners repre- sented the respective joint families, and the partnership deed provid- ed that the death of any of .the parties shall not dissolve the partner- ship and either the legal heir or the nominee of the deceased partner ,·hould take his place. One of the kartas died in 1945 leaving as mem- of his branch of the family, three v.1idov,1s and two minor sons.

The other partner continued the business of the sui<ar mill in the firm name. For the assessment year 1950-51, the assessee (respondent-firm) applied for registration on the basis of the partnership agreement of 1943. The Income-tax Officer, Appellate Assistant Commissioner And the Tribunal held that there was

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 31

All 329 judgments and leading authorities on Section 31 →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →