Tax on Non-Resident Partner's Share Income: Full Bench Decision on Excludable Income

The Full Bench held that for determining the tax payable by a firm in respect of the share income of a non-resident partner, only the share income should be considered, excluding other income sources. The appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was deemed competent under section 246(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The decision favored the assessee on both issues, with no costs awarded.

---

---

Issues Involved:

1. Determination of the rate of tax applicable on the share income of a non-resident partner under section 182(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
2. Competency of the appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner under section 246(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Determination of the Rate of Tax Applicable on the Share Income of a Non-Resident Partner:

The primary issue revolves around the interpretation of section 182(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which states, "When any of the partners of a registered firm is a non-resident, the tax on his share in the income of the firm shall be assessed on the firm at the rate or rates which would be applicable if it were assessed on him personally, and the tax so assessed shall be paid by the firm."

The question was whether the rate of tax should be based solely on the non-resident partner's share of income from the firm or on his entire total income, including other sources. The Income-tax Officer and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner held that the rate should be based on the total income of the partner. However, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held otherwise, leading to the Revenue's challenge.

The Division Bench initially referred to the case of CIT v. Srinivas and Co. [1996] 219 ITR 636 (Mad), which decided that only the share income should be considered for determining the tax rate. However, the Division Bench found this interpretation problematic and referred the matter to a Full Bench for reconsideration.

The Full Bench reaffirmed the decision in CIT v. Srinivas and Co., emphasizing that section 182(3) does not imply that the entire total income of the non-resident partner should be considered. Instead, it focuses on the share income derived from the firm. The Full Bench noted that the provision allows for a summary assessment of the share income in the hands of the firm without waiting for the completion of the non-resident partner's individual assessment. This interpretation prevents practical difficulties and ensures expeditious tax collection.

The Full Bench also referenced the historical context and judicial precedents, including Gnanam and Sons v. CIT [1961] 43 ITR 485 (Mad) and RM. Ramanathan Chettiar v. CIT [1970] 78 ITR 10 (SC), which supported the view that only the share income should be assessed in the hands of the firm.

Therefore, the Full Bench concluded that for determining the tax payable by the firm in respect of the share income of a non-resident partner, only the share income should be considered, and the tax should be determined accordingly, excluding other income sources.

2. Competency of the Appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner:

The second common question addressed whether the appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was competent under section 246(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal had held that the appeal was competent, and the Revenue's counsel conceded this point, agreeing that the Tribunal's conclusion was correct.

The Division Bench affirmed this view, noting that the assessment was under section 143(3) of the Act, read with section 182(3), and since section 246(c) provides for an appeal against an assessment under section 143(3), the appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was indeed competent.

Conclusion:

The Full Bench answered the first common question of law in the affirmative and against the Revenue, holding that for determining the tax payable by the firm in respect of the share income of a non-resident partner, only the share income should be considered. The second common question regarding the competency of the appeal was resolved in favor of the assessee, affirming the Tribunal's decision. No costs were awarded.

---