1996 (12) TMI 2 - SC - Income Tax

Appeal allowed: interest paid to partner representing HUF not disallowable under s.40(b); Explanation 2 retrospective under s.256

The SC allowed the appeal, holding that interest paid to a partner who represents a Hindu undivided family on deposits of his personal funds is not ... Interpretation of section 40(b) - deduction of interest paid to a partner representing a Hindu undivided family - income chargeable under the head 'Profits and gains of business or profession' - HELD THAT:- The provisions in Chapters III and IV of the Partnership Act amply define and delineate the duties, obligations and rights of the partners vis-a-vis the firm. The question yet remains where an individual is a partner in one capacity, e.g., as a representative of another person, can he have no other capacity vis-a-vis the firm. To be more precise, does the above position of law preclude an individual, who is a partner representing a Hindu undivided family, from depositing his personal funds with the partnership and receiving interest thereon? Explanation 2 says in clear terms that there is no such bar. This is the legislative recognition of the theory of different capacities an individual may hold---no doubt confined to clause (b) of section 40. Once this is so, we see no reason to hold that this theory of different capacities is not valid or available for the period anterior to April 1, 1985. Accordingly, we hold that even for the period anterior to April 1, 1985, any interest paid to a partner, who is a partner representing his Hindu undivided family, on the deposit of his personal/individual funds, does not fall within the mischief of clause (b) of section 40. In this view of the matter, we agree with the view taken by the Rajasthan High Court in Gajanand Poonam Chand and Bros.[1988 (5) TMI 24 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] that Explanation 2, in the context of clause (b) of section 40, is declaratory in nature. Accordingly, we allow this appeal, set aside the judgment of the High Court and answer the question referred under section 256 in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. Issues:Interpretation of section 40(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 regarding deduction of interest paid to a partner representing a Hindu undivided family.Analysis:The main issue in this case was the interpretation of section 40(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, specifically regarding the deduction of interest paid to a partner who represents a Hindu undivided family (HUF). The case involved a partnership firm with a partner who was a karta of and representing his HUF. The firm maintained separate accounts for this partner, crediting profits to his capital account and interest on deposits to his deposit account. The question was whether the interest paid to this partner in his individual capacity was subject to disallowance under section 40(b) as a payment made to a partner.The Tribunal initially allowed the claim for interest paid on the credit balance in the individual account of the partner representing the HUF. However, the High Court disagreed, stating that the interest amount was rightly disallowed by the Income-tax Officer. The High Court certified the case under section 261 of the Act, leading to further appeal.The introduction of Explanations 1, 2, and 3 to section 40(b) by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1984, was crucial in determining the outcome of the case. Explanation 2 clarified that where an individual is a partner on behalf of or for the benefit of another person, interest paid to the individual in his individual capacity would not be considered for disallowance under clause (b). The issue was whether this Explanation applied retrospectively to cases before April 1, 1985.The Rajasthan High Court's view in Gajanand Poonam Chand and Bros. v. CIT was pivotal in the judgment. The court held that Explanation 2 was declaratory in nature and should apply even for assessment years prior to April 1, 1985. This interpretation was based on the understanding that an individual and an HUF are distinct entities for tax purposes, and therefore, interest paid to a partner representing an HUF in his individual capacity should not be disallowed under section 40(b).The Supreme Court, aligning with the Rajasthan High Court's interpretation, held that interest paid to a partner representing his HUF on personal deposits did not fall within the scope of section 40(b). The court emphasized the legislative recognition of different capacities an individual may hold within a partnership and concluded that Explanation 2 was declaratory in nature, allowing the appeal in favor of the assessee and against the Revenue.