COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, AHMEDABAD vs. A. ABDUL RAHIM & CO., BARODA

CIVIL APPEAL No. 982/1963Supreme Court[1965] 2 S.C.R. 1304 November 1964Bench: 3 JudgesAuthor: K. SUBBA RAO, J.C. SHAH, S.M. SIKRI A COMMISSIONER OF INCOME9 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What were the facts?

The assessee, A. Abdul Rahim & Co., Baroda, sought registration of its partnership firm for the assessment year commencing from Samvat year 2012 (November 15, 1955, to November 2, 1956). The firm was reconstituted with four partners: Abdul Rahim Valibhai (7 annas share), Abdulla Rehman (5 annas share), Abdul Rahim Malanghbhai (2 annas share), and Abdul Rehman Kalubhai (2 annas share). Abdul Rehman Kalubhai was the nephew of Abdul Rahim Valibhai, and his share was carved out of Abdul Rahim Valibhai's original share. The Income-tax Officer rejected the registration application, deeming the partnership bogus. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner, the Appellate Tribunal, and the Gujarat High Court all held the partnership agreement to be valid in law and that the presence of a benamidar partner was not a sufficient ground for refusal. The Revenue appealed this decision.

What did the Supreme Court hold?

The Supreme Court held that an Income-tax Officer can reject a partnership registration application under Section 26A of the Income-tax Act, 1922, if the partnership is not genuine or if the instrument of partnership does not correctly specify the individual shares of the partners. However, once the partnership is found to be genuine and valid, registration cannot be refused solely on the ground that one partner is a benamidar of another. The Court reasoned that a benamidar, like a trustee, possesses the legal character to enter into a partnership. The share allocated to the benamidar in the partnership deed constitutes a correct specification of his individual share. While the beneficial interest in the income pertaining to the benamidar's share might be relevant for assessment purposes, it does not impact the firm's eligibility for registration. The Court dismissed the Revenue's appeal, affirming the High Court's decision.

What were the issues?

1. Whether a partnership in which one partner is a benamidar of another partner can be registered under Section 26A of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, if the partnership is otherwise genuine and valid? (Question of law) 2. Whether the partnership deed, which showed Abdul Rahim Valibhai with a 7 annas share and Abdul Rehman Kalubhai (his nephew and benamidar) with a 2 annas share, failed to correctly specify the individual shares of the partners as required by Section 26A, thus justifying the refusal of registration? (Question of mixed law and fact) Assessee's Contentions: The assessee argued that the question of genuineness is a question of fact, and since it was not referred to the High Court, the Revenue could not raise it. They further contended that if the partnership is genuine, the fact that one partner is a benamidar of another under an internal arrangement does not invalidate the partnership or disqualify it from registration. Revenue's Contentions: The Revenue contended that Abdul Rehman Kalubhai was a dummy partner, making the partnership not genuine. Alternatively, they argued that even if he was a benamidar, Abdul Rahim Valibhai's actual share was 9 annas (7 annas + 2 annas), not the 7 annas stated in the deed. This, they claimed, meant the partnership deed did not correctly specify individual shares as required by Section 26A, justifying the rejection of registration.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 26A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

13 A COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, AHMEDABAD c D F G ll, A. ABDUL RAHIM & CO., BARODA November 4, 1964 [K. SUBBA RAo, J.C. SHAH AND s. M. SIKRI, JJ.] lnrome Tax Act, 1922, Section 16A registration of partnership--More tha itwo partners-Otherwise genuine-Whether can be refused registration w!wn one partner is benamidar.

Benamidar-Status of-If trustee of the real owner. A partnership consisting of three partners was reconstituted to take in a 4th partner who was a nephew of, and wa• given a part out of his own share by, one of. the existing partners. The application by the new part· nership firm for registration under s. 26-A of the Income-tax Act, 1922, was rejected by the Income-tax Officer on the ground that as the new partner was a benamidar, the partnership was not a genuine one. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner, the Appellate Tribunal and the Hi~ Court, all took the view that the new partnership agreement was valid m law and the fact that one of the partners was a benamidar of another was not a sufficient ground for refusing to register the firm.

It was contended on behalf of the Revenue that apart from the fact that the 4th partner was a dummy and t

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 →