COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, MADRAS vs. BAGYALAKSHMI & CO., UDAMALPET

CIVIL APPEAL No. 1099/1963Supreme Court[1965] 2 S.C.R. 2204 November 1964Bench: 3 JudgesAuthor: K. SUBBA RAO, J.C. SHAH, S.M. SIKRI COMMISSIONER OF INCOME7 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What were the facts?

The assessee-firm, Bagyalakshmi & Co., sought registration under Section 26A of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, for assessment years 1952-53, 1953-54, and 1954-55. The firm's partners, G and V, represented a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) which held a 10 annas share. Following a partition in the HUF on August 24, 1950, the shares of G and V in the HUF interest were reduced to 2 annas and 1 anna 4 pies respectively. However, a new partnership deed dated November 30, 1950, showed their shares in the firm as 7.5 annas and 2.5 annas. The Income-tax authorities accepted the firm's registration. Subsequently, the Commissioner of Income-tax, acting under Section 33B, cancelled the registration, citing the discrepancy between the partnership deed and the partition deed. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's order. The High Court, however, ruled in favour of the assessee, leading to the present appeal by the Commissioner.

What did the Supreme Court hold?

The Supreme Court held that the High Court had given correct answers to the questions propounded. The Court reasoned that a partnership deed governs the rights and liabilities of partners inter se and has no concern with their obligations to third parties regarding their shares. A partner can represent a group of persons, such as members of an HUF, and function in a dual capacity: personally in the partnership and representatively towards the third parties (the HUF members). The law of partnership and Hindu law operate in different fields. Therefore, even if the beneficial interest in the partnership share belonged to divided members of an erstwhile HUF, and their shares in that interest differed from their shares in the partnership itself, this did not invalidate the partnership or its registration. The Court emphasized that if the partnership deed was genuine, the shares stated therein were correct for the purpose of partnership law. The Court referred to its decision in Charandas Haridas v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay, which supported the principle that partition in a family does not alter a partner's position vis-à-vis other partners, though it changes the position under Hindu law. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Commissioner's action under Section 33B of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, cancelling the registration of the firm was lawful, considering the variance between the partnership deed and the partition deed of the Hindu Undivided Family (HUF)? Assessee's contentions: The assessee argued that the partnership deed was genuine and reflected the actual agreement between the partners regarding their shares in the firm. They contended that the internal arrangement within the HUF regarding the distribution of profits from the partnership interest was separate from the partnership's contractual obligations. The High Court had already ruled in their favour. Revenue's contentions: The Revenue contended that the partnership deed did not specify the correct shares of partners G and V, as their entitlement according to the partition deed was 2 annas and 1 anna 4 pies, while the partnership deed showed them as holding 7.5 annas and 2.5 annas respectively. Therefore, the firm could not be registered under Section 26A.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 26A,Section 33B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

.22 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, MADRAS v. BAGYALAKSHMI & CO., UDAMALPET November 4, 1964 [K. SUBBA RAo, J. C. SHAH AND S. M. SIKRI, JJ.] Income Tax-Registration of firm-Members of Hindu undivided family representing it as partners in firm-Partition of Hindu undivided family-- Variance between the interests of the members as shown in partnership deed and as shown in partition deed-Partnership otherwise genuine-Whether registerabk-Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (11 of 1922), s. 26A. A B G and his son V belonged to a Hindu undivided family, and as repre- C scntatives of the family were partnero in the assesee-firm holding therein shares of 7t as. and 2t as. respectively.

The family thus held through them, an interest of 10 as. in the assessee-firm. On August 24, 1950, there was a partition in the family, and according to the partition-deed the IO as. interest of the family in the assessee-firm was divided in such a way between seven members that the shares allotted to G and V came to 2 as. and I anna 4 pies respectively.

On November 30, 1950, a new . partnership-deed was drawn up by the partners of the assessee-firm and the D shares allotted to G and V therein wer

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 →