1964 (4) TMI 16 - SC - Income Tax

Supreme Court affirms jurisdiction over factual findings in Income-tax case

Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Madras Versus Sivakasi Match Exporting Company

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision that it had jurisdiction to interfere with the factual findings of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal ... Whether the finding of the Appellate Tribunal was one of fact and that the High Court had no jurisdiction to canvass the correctness of its finding on a reference made under section 66(2) of the Act? Whether the conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal was the correct one and the High Court erroneously interfered with it? Held that:- The Tribunal mixed up the two concepts, viz., the legality of the partnership and the ultimate destination of the partners' profits. It also mixed up the question of the validity of the partnership and the object of the individual partners in entering into the partnership. If to avoid a legal difficulty 5 individuals, though four of them are members of different firms, enter into a partnership expressly to comply with a provision of law, we do not see any question of fraud or genuineness involved. It is a genuine document and it complies with the requirements of law. It is not an attempt to evade tax, but a legal device to reduce its tax liability. The fact that all the partners of all the firms did not exceed 12 in number and if they chose all of them could have entered into the partnership indicates that there was no sinister motive behind the partnership. As the Tribunal misconstrued the provisions of the partnership deed and relied upon irrelevant considerations in coming to the conclusion it did, the High Court rightly differed from the view of the Tribunal. In the circumstances, in view of the decision of this court in Sree Meenakshi Mills' case [1956 (9) TMI 1 - SUPREME Court] a question of law within the meaning of section 66(2) of the Act arose for decision. The High Court rightly answered the question in the negative. Appeal dismissed. Issues Involved:1. Whether the High Court had jurisdiction to interfere with the factual findings of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal under section 66(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922.2. Whether the partnership deed dated April 1, 1950, was genuine and valid for registration under section 26A of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922.Detailed Analysis:1. Jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 66(2):The primary issue was whether the High Court had the authority to interfere with the factual findings of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal had concluded that the partnership deed was not genuine, based on the construction of the partnership deed and certain circumstances. The High Court, on the other hand, found that the partnership deed was valid and that the Tribunal's reasons were irrelevant.The Supreme Court clarified that under section 66(2) of the Act, a reference to the High Court lies only on a question of law. The High Court has jurisdiction if the order refusing registration goes beyond the scope of the jurisdiction conferred on the Income-tax Officer under section 26A, if the decision depends on the construction of the partnership deed, or if there is no evidence to sustain the Tribunal's finding. The Court held that the Tribunal's finding fell under these heads, thus giving the High Court jurisdiction to entertain the reference.2. Validity and Genuineness of the Partnership Deed:The second issue revolved around the genuineness and validity of the partnership deed dated April 1, 1950. The Tribunal had held that the partnership was not genuine for several reasons, including the previous refusal of registration, the commission clause in the partnership deed, capital contributions from the parent firms, and the distribution of profits among the larger firms. The High Court, however, found that the partnership deed disclosed a valid partnership and that the Tribunal's reasons were irrelevant.The Supreme Court analyzed the relevant clauses of the partnership deed, including Clause 16, which stipulated the collection of commission, and Clauses 22 and 23, which emphasized the separate identities of the assessee firm and the parent firms. The Court concluded that the partnership deed embodied a valid partnership entered into in conformity with the law of partnership. The Court emphasized that the mere fact that one of the partners borrowed capital from a parent firm or surrendered profits to the parent firm did not make the partnership any less genuine. The Tribunal had mixed up the concepts of legality of the partnership and the ultimate destination of the partners' profits, as well as the validity of the partnership and the object of the individual partners in entering into the partnership.Separate Judgment by Shah J.:Shah J. delivered a separate judgment, concurring with the Tribunal's conclusion that the partnership deed was not genuine. He emphasized that the Tribunal's finding that the named partners were acting as representatives of their respective match factories was a factual one and not open to be canvassed in a reference under section 66(2). Shah J. noted that the High Court had overstepped its jurisdiction by reappraising the evidence and substituting its own findings for those of the Tribunal. He concluded that the High Court was in error in holding that the registration of the assessee under section 26A was wrongly refused.Conclusion:The Supreme Court, in accordance with the opinion of the majority, dismissed the appeal with costs, upholding the High Court's decision that the partnership deed was genuine and valid for registration under section 26A of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922.