1984 (12) TMI 52 - HC - Income Tax

Firm entitled to business registration for leasing activities under Partnership Act.

The firm was entitled to registration for the assessment years 1970-71 to 1974-75. The Tribunal upheld the firm's business activities of leasing out ... Business, Leasing Activity, Registration Issues Involved:1. Entitlement of the firm to registration for the assessment years 1970-71, 1971-72, and 1972-73.2. Entitlement of the firm to registration for the assessment years 1973-74 and 1974-75.3. Legality of a partnership carrying on the business of leasing out commercial assets and its eligibility for registration under the Income-tax Act, 1961.4. Justification of the Appellate Tribunal in confirming the orders of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner annulling the assessments made in the status of association of persons and directing the Income-tax Officer to grant registration to the assessee-firm for the assessment years 1970-71 to 1974-75.Detailed Analysis:Issue 1: Entitlement of the firm to registration for the assessment years 1970-71, 1971-72, and 1972-73The firm, constituted under the partnership deed dated July 10, 1969, applied for registration for the assessment years 1970-71, 1971-72, and 1972-73. The Income-tax Officer refused registration on the grounds that the firm did not carry on any business activity and assessed the income under the head 'Other sources.' However, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner allowed the firm's appeal, holding that the firm was carrying on business by letting out commercial assets. The Tribunal upheld this view, stating that the term 'business' in the Partnership Act should be understood in a wider sense, including the letting out of commercial assets as a business activity. The Tribunal directed the Income-tax Officer to grant registration and redo the assessments in the status of a registered firm.Issue 2: Entitlement of the firm to registration for the assessment years 1973-74 and 1974-75The firm was reconstituted under another partnership deed dated April 17, 1972, and applied for registration for the assessment years 1973-74 and 1974-75. The Income-tax Officer again refused registration, assessing the income under the head 'Other sources.' The Appellate Assistant Commissioner allowed the firm's appeal, directing registration and continuance for the succeeding years. The Tribunal confirmed this decision, emphasizing that the firm's activities constituted a business under the Partnership Act.Issue 3: Legality of a partnership carrying on the business of leasing out commercial assets and its eligibility for registration under the Income-tax Act, 1961The Tribunal held that the firm was entitled to registration under the Partnership Act, as the letting out of commercial assets constituted a business activity. The Tribunal noted that the definition of 'business' in the Partnership Act is broader than in the Income-tax Act, including every trade, occupation, or profession. The Tribunal referenced several judicial precedents, including Nauharchand Chananram v. CIT and CEPT v. Shri Lakshmi Silk Mills Limited, to support the view that leasing out commercial assets is a business activity. The Tribunal concluded that the firm was validly constituted under the Partnership Act and entitled to registration.Issue 4: Justification of the Appellate Tribunal in confirming the orders of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner annulling the assessments made in the status of association of persons and directing the Income-tax Officer to grant registration to the assessee-firm for the assessment years 1970-71 to 1974-75The Tribunal confirmed the orders of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, annulling the assessments made in the status of association of persons and directing the Income-tax Officer to grant registration to the assessee-firm. The Tribunal held that the firm's activities of letting out commercial assets constituted a business under the Partnership Act. The Tribunal emphasized that the commercial nature of the assets did not change when leased out, and the firm continued to engage in business activities. The Tribunal concluded that the firm was entitled to registration and its income should be assessed under the head 'Business.'Conclusion:The Tribunal was justified in directing the registration of the firm for the assessment years 1970-71 to 1974-75. The firm's activities of leasing out commercial assets constituted a business under the Partnership Act, entitling it to registration. The Tribunal's decision was based on a broader interpretation of 'business' in the Partnership Act and supported by judicial precedents. The Tribunal's orders annulling the assessments made in the status of association of persons and directing the Income-tax Officer to grant registration were affirmed. All four questions were answered in the affirmative, in favor of the assessee and against the Revenue. No costs were awarded, and the advocate's fee was set at Rs. 500.