2005 (11) TMI 205 - AT - Income Tax

Partnership Deed with Deity Invalid; Assessed as AOP; Interest Disallowed

Ramakrishbna Chit Fund Company, Nizambad. Versus Income-tax Officer, Ward - 2.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, confirming that the partnership deed including a deity as a partner was invalid. Consequently, the assessee was ... Assessed As Such Issues Involved:1. Validity of the partnership deed involving a deity as a partner.2. Assessment status of the assessee as a partnership firm or an Association of Persons (AOP).3. Allowability of interest and remuneration payments to partners under section 40(b).4. Taxation at the maximum marginal rate under section 167B(2)(1).Detailed Analysis:1. Validity of the Partnership Deed Involving a Deity as a Partner:The core issue is whether a partnership deed that includes a deity as a partner can be considered valid under the Partnership Act. The Assessing Officer found that one of the partners, S. Mata, was a non-existent, artificial entity, purportedly Goddess Santoshi Matha. The CIT(A) upheld this view, emphasizing that the partnership deed was not valid as it included a fictitious person, and there was no evidence that S. Mata was a deity or that the profits were meant for spiritual purposes. The Tribunal confirmed this, noting that the partnership deed gave misleading identifications, such as attributing a physical address and age to the deity, which is not permissible under the Partnership Act. The Tribunal cited several case laws, including Rao Bahadur Ravulu Subba Rao v. CIT and CIT v. Tapang Light Foundry & Co., to support the conclusion that a deity cannot be a partner in a firm.2. Assessment Status of the Assessee as a Partnership Firm or an AOP:The Assessing Officer treated the assessee's status as an AOP instead of a partnership firm due to the inclusion of a fictitious partner. The CIT(A) agreed, stating that the partnership deed was invalid and the firm should be assessed as an AOP. The Tribunal upheld this decision, emphasizing that the partnership could not be considered valid under the Partnership Act, and thus, the assessee could not be assessed as a firm. The Tribunal also dismissed the assessee's reliance on the amendment to section 184, noting that the genuineness of the partnership must still be verified.3. Allowability of Interest and Remuneration Payments to Partners Under Section 40(b):Since the assessee's status was determined as an AOP, the CIT(A) directed the Assessing Officer to disallow interest and remuneration payments to partners, making additions of Rs. 96,884 and Rs. 19,500, respectively. The Tribunal confirmed this, noting that under section 40(b), such payments are only allowable if the entity is a valid partnership firm, which was not the case here.4. Taxation at the Maximum Marginal Rate Under Section 167B(2)(1):The Assessing Officer invoked section 167B(2)(1) to charge tax on the income determined at the maximum marginal rate, as the income returned exceeded the taxable minimum. The CIT(A) upheld this, and the Tribunal confirmed, noting that the status as an AOP warranted taxation at the maximum marginal rate.Conclusion:The Tribunal dismissed the appeal of the assessee, confirming the CIT(A)'s order that the partnership deed was invalid due to the inclusion of a deity as a partner, and the assessee should be assessed as an AOP. Consequently, interest and remuneration payments to partners were disallowed, and the income was taxed at the maximum marginal rate. The Tribunal's decision was based on a thorough examination of relevant case laws and statutory provisions, emphasizing the legal impossibility of a deity being a partner in a firm.