1983 (9) TMI 19 - HC - Income Tax

Court rules remuneration paid to family member for HUF benefit is deductible.

The High Court concluded that the remuneration paid to Mahendra Sunderlal was for the benefit of the Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) and thus, the ... Assessment, Deduction, HUF Issues Involved:1. Entitlement to Deduction of Remuneration Paid to Mahendra Sunderlal2. Construction and Interpretation of Agreement Dated November 16, 19683. Nature of Services Rendered by Mahendra Sunderlal4. Application of Legal PrecedentsDetailed Analysis:1. Entitlement to Deduction of Remuneration Paid to Mahendra Sunderlal:The primary issue was whether the assessee-family was entitled to deduct the remuneration paid to Mahendra Sunderlal. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) rejected the claim on the grounds that no such claim was made in the past and that the payment was not for earning income from the firms. However, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (AAC) allowed the claim based on Supreme Court decisions in Jugal Kishore Baldeo Sahai v. CIT and Jitmal Bhuramal v. CIT. The Tribunal, following its earlier decision, held that the assessee-family was not entitled to the deduction, leading to the reference to the High Court.2. Construction and Interpretation of Agreement Dated November 16, 1968:The court emphasized the need to interpret the agreement dated November 16, 1968, to determine whether the services rendered by Mahendra Sunderlal were for the firms or the HUF. The agreement was analyzed in detail, noting that Sunderlal Nanalal, the karta, engaged Mahendra due to his old age and health issues. The agreement indicated that Mahendra was to assist in managing the firms as a representative of the HUF, and the remuneration was paid by the HUF, suggesting the services were rendered to the family.3. Nature of Services Rendered by Mahendra Sunderlal:The court examined whether the services rendered by Mahendra were to the firms or the HUF. It was established that the remuneration was paid by the HUF and that Mahendra was to assist Sunderlal Nanalal in managing the firms due to his old age and health. The agreement's terms suggested that Mahendra's services were for the benefit of the HUF, as he was to act as a representative of the family and the consequences of his actions were to be borne by the HUF.4. Application of Legal Precedents:The court referred to the legal position established in previous cases, particularly Shankerlal H. Dave v. CIT, where it was held that remuneration paid to a karta for looking after the interests of the HUF in partnership businesses could be deducted. The court noted that the Tribunal failed to address the specific question of who benefited from Mahendra's services and instead relied on a previous decision without proper analysis. The court reiterated that the remuneration must be justified on the grounds of commercial expediency and should benefit the HUF.Conclusion:The High Court concluded that the Tribunal erred in its decision. The agreement and the circumstances indicated that Mahendra Sunderlal's services were rendered to the HUF, and the remuneration paid was for the benefit of the family. Thus, the assessee-family was entitled to the deduction. The court answered the question in the negative, in favor of the assessee and against the Revenue, and directed the Commissioner to pay the costs of the reference to the assessee.