Income from property under section 26 taxable in partners' hands; firm escapes addition, interest disallowance deleted

ITAT Hyderabad allowed the assessee-firm's appeals and set aside the CIT(A)'s orders that had upheld addition of income and disallowance of interest paid to partners in the hands of the firm. Relying on its own decision in the assessee's earlier assessment year and the binding AP HC precedent, the Tribunal held that the income in question was liable to be assessed as "income from property" under section 26, in the hands of the individual co-owners/partners, not in the hands of the firm. Consequently, the disallowance of interest paid to partners was deleted for all three assessment years, with a direction to the AO to redo the assessments afresh in accordance with these principles.

---

---

1. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED

1.1 Whether the income derived from immovable property standing in the name of a partnership firm, which is not carrying on any business, is to be assessed under the head "income from house property" in the hands of the partners/co-owners in terms of section 26 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, or in the hands of the firm.

1.2 Consequent upon the proper person of assessment of rental income, whether disallowance of interest paid on partners' loan accounts in the hands of the firm is justified for the relevant assessment years.

1.3 Whether the first appellate authority was justified in declining to follow the binding decision of the Tribunal in the assessee's own case for an earlier assessment year on the same issue.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1: Person assessable to rental income and applicability of section 26

Legal framework (as discussed)

2.1 The Tribunal referred to section 26 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which provides for assessment of income from property owned by co-owners in definite and ascertainable shares, and to the earlier decision of the Tribunal in the assessee's own case for a prior assessment year, which in turn relied on the judgment of the jurisdictional High Court in CIT v. Phabiomal & Sons, and other decisions holding that where there is no business, there cannot be a firm for income-tax purposes and that section 26 should apply.

Interpretation and reasoning

2.2 The Assessing Officer and the first appellate authority treated the immovable property as belonging to the firm, reasoning that: (i) the property was constructed by the firm; (ii) there was no dissolution of the firm; (iii) once the partnership came into existence, individual contributions/ownership of land were "washed out" and ownership vested in the firm; and (iv) in the absence of a dissolution deed and definite shares, the partners could not be treated as co-owners so as to attract section 26.

2.3 The Tribunal examined its own earlier order in the assessee's case for a preceding assessment year where, following the binding ratio of the jurisdictional High Court in Phabiomal & Sons and other cited decisions, it had held that: (a) the income from the property in question should be computed under the head "income from property"; and (b) section 26 "comes into operation" and the assessment "should have been made on each of the co-owners in accordance with the provisions contained therein".

2.4 The Tribunal noted that the factual and legal situation in the years under appeal was identical to that in the earlier year already decided. No distinguishing facts or change in law were shown by the Revenue, nor was there any contrary decision overruling or modifying the earlier binding precedent.

2.5 The mere fact that an appeal by the Revenue against the earlier Tribunal order was pending before the jurisdictional High Court was not treated as a ground to disregard or decline to follow the existing binding precedent of the Tribunal and the High Court's ratio applied therein.

Conclusions

2.6 The Tribunal reaffirmed that, in the circumstances of this case, rental income from the property has to be assessed as "income from house property" in the hands of the partners/co-owners by applying section 26 of the Act, and not in the hands of the firm.

Issue 2: Disallowance of interest on partners' loans in the hands of the firm

Interpretation and reasoning

2.7 The Assessing Officer had disallowed the assessee's claim of interest on partners' loan accounts (e.g., Rs. 16,20,000 for AY 2002-03) in the hands of the firm, proceeding on the footing that the rental income was taxable in the hands of the firm and not in the hands of the partners/co-owners.

2.8 Once the Tribunal held that the rental income itself was not assessable in the hands of the firm but was to be assessed in the hands of the partners/co-owners under section 26, the foundation for sustaining a disallowance of interest in the firm's assessment, as made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the CIT(A), ceased to exist.

Conclusions

2.9 The Tribunal set aside the order of the first appellate authority and deleted the disallowance of interest on partners' loans made in the firm's hands for all three assessment years in question, directing that the assessments be redone in accordance with the earlier coordinate bench directions and the application of section 26.

Issue 3: Failure of the first appellate authority to follow binding Tribunal precedent

Interpretation and reasoning

2.10 The Tribunal observed that, in the earlier year, it had already decided, on identical facts, that section 26 applies and that income should be assessed in the hands of co-owners. That decision was based on and in conformity with the jurisdictional High Court's judgment.

2.11 The first appellate authority nevertheless declined to follow the earlier Tribunal order, construing it merely as "guidance", and holding that in the absence of a dissolution deed and clear conferment of ownership on co-owners, the firm remained the legal owner of the property. On that basis, the appellate authority upheld the assessment of income in the firm's hands.

2.12 The Tribunal disagreed with this approach, treating its earlier decision in the assessee's own case as binding and directly applicable, and holding that the first appellate authority ought to have followed that decision instead of upholding the Assessing Officer's view.

Conclusions

2.13 The Tribunal held that the first appellate authority erred in not following the binding precedent of the Tribunal in the assessee's own case for an earlier year, and accordingly set aside the appellate order and restored conformity with the earlier coordinate bench decision.

---