Commissioner of Income-Tax, West
Bengal Vs. A. W. Figgies & Co., & Ors  INSC 52 (24 September
MAHAJAN, MEHR CHAND DAS, SUDHI RANJAN
BHAGWATI, NATWARLAL H.
CITATION: 1953 AIR 455 1954 SCR 171
CITATOR INFO :
RF 1956 SC 354 (15) RF 1967 SC 617 (40,41) D
1974 SC1026 (15) R 1979 SC 379 (5) RF 1982 SC1085 (9) F 1985 SC1143 (4,8) RF
1986 SC 376 (22)
Income-tax Act (XI of 1922), s. 25(4)-Firm
paying tax in 1918 -Conversion to limited company in 1947-Right to relief under
s. 25(4)-Change in personnel of firm in 1939 and 1947, effect of.
For purposes of assessment to income-tax, a
firm is a different entity distinct from its partners, and a mere change in the
constitution of the firm does not bring into existence a new assessable unit or
a distinct assessable entity. (1) 67 I.A. 464,481.
172 A firm consisting of three partners, A, B
and C, carried on the business of tea brokers and paid income-tax under the
Income-tax Act of 1918. There were several changes in the personnel of the
partners and in 1939 the firm consisted of C, D and E. C retired and in 1945 a
new partnership deed was written up between D, E and F and they carried on the
business. In 1947 the partnership was converted into a limited company. The
Income-tax authorities refused to give relief under s. 25(4) of the Income-tax
Act as the partners of the firm in 1939 were different from the partners of the
firm in 1947:
Held, that in spite of the changes in the
constitution of the firm, the business of the firm as originally constituted
continued right from its inception to the time it was succeeded by the limited
company and the firm was the same unit all through; the reconstitution of the
firm in 1945 did not make it a different unit, and the firm was therefore
entitled to relief under s. 25(4) of the Act.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal
No. 77 of 1952.
Appeal from the Judgment and Order dated the 9th January, 1951, of the High Court of Judicature at Calcutta (Harries C. J. and Banerjee
J.) in its Special Jurisdiction (Income- tax) in Income-tax Reference No. 70 of
C. K. Daphtary, Solicitor-General for India
(Porus A. Mehta, with him) for the appellant.
N. C. Chatterjee (B. Sen, with him) for the
1953. September 24. The Judgment of the Court
was delivered by MAHAJAN J.-This is an appeal from a judgment of the High Court
of Judicature at Calcutta delivered in a reference under section 66(1) of the
Indian Incometax Act, whereby the High Court answered the question referred in
The assessee is a partnership concern. When
income-tax was paid under the Act of 1918, the partnership concern consisted of
three partners, Mathews, Figgies and Notley.
The name of the firm was A. W. Figgies &
Co., and its' business was that of tea brokers. There were several changes in
the constitution of the firm resulting in a change in the shares of 173 the
partners. In 1924, Mathews went out and his share was taken over by Figgies and
Notley. In 1926 another partner Squire was introduced. In 1932 Figgies went
out, and from 1932 to 1939 the partnership consisted only of Notley and Squire.
In 1939 Hillman was brought in and the partnership consisted of these three
partners. In 1943 Notley went out and the partnership business was carried on
by the two partners, Squire and Hillman. In 1945 Gilbert was brought in. This
arrangement continued up to 31st May, 1947, when the partnership was converted
into a limited company.
For the assessment year 1947 -48 the assessee
claimed that it was entitled to relief under section 25(4) of the Act as the
partnership firm had been succeeded by a private limited company. There was a
provision in the partnership deed of 1939 that on the retirement of any partner
the partnership would not be determined but would be carried on by the
remaining partners. It appears that a fresh partnership deed was drawn up in
the year 1945 when Gilbert was brought in. The partnership constituted by these
three partners continued to carry on the same business that had been started
when the tax was paid under the Act of 1918. From the statement of the case it
does not appear that apart from the mere change in the personnel of the
partners and in their respective shares there was any actual dissolution of the
firm, and any division of its assets and liabilities or a succession to its
business by any outside person.
The Income-tax Officer disallowed the claim
of the assessee on the ground that the partners of the firm in 1939 being
different from the partners of the firm in 1947, no relief could be given to
the applicant. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner upheld this view. On appeal
to the Income-tax Tribunal, this decision was reversed and relief was granted
to the applicant under section 25(4). Before the Tribunal it was argued on
behalf of the Commissioner that the partnership was nothing but an association
of persons and therefore, in 24 174 order to get relief under section 25(4) of
the Act the partners of 1939 must be the same as the partners of 1947 when the
firm was succeeded by the company. The Tribunal repelled this contention and
held that the relief contemplated by section 25(4) of the Income-tax Act was to
be given to the business and not to the persons carrying on the business and
that mere changes in the constitution of the firm had to be ignored. It was not
disputed before the Tribunal that the business of the partnership firm of A. W.
Figgies & Co. continued as tea brokers
right from its inception till the time it was succeeded by the limited company.
The Tribunal took the view that for purposes of income tax the firm was to be
regarded as having a separate juristic existence apart from the partners
carrying on the business and that the firm could be carried on even if there
was a change in its constitution.
At the instance of the appellant the Tribunal
stated a case and referred the following question to the High Court under
section 66(1) of the Act :
"In the facts and circumstances of the
case, was the firm as constituted on 31st May, 1947, entitled to the relief
under section 25(4) of the Indian Income tax Act ?" The High Court
answered the question referred in the affirmative. It upheld the view taken by
It was contended before us that the
construction placed by the High Court upon section 25(4) of the Act was
erroneous and was not warranted by the language of the section and that by
reason of the change in the composition of the firm the same firm did not
continue throughout and hence there was no right to relief under section 25(4) of
the Act in the changed firm. In our opinion, this contention is without force.
Section 25 (4) is in these terms:- "Where the person who was at the
commencement of the Indian Income-tax (Amendment) Act, 1939, carrying on any
business, profession or vocation on which tax was at any time charged under the
provisions of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1918, is succeeded in such capacity by
another person, the change not being 175 merely a change in the constitution of
a partnership, no tax shall be payable by the first mentioned person in respect
of the income, profits and gains of the period between the end of the previous
year and the date of such succession, and such person may further claim that
the income, profits and gains of the previous year shall be deemed to have been
the income, profits and gains of the said period. Where any such claim is made,
an assessment shall be made on the basis of the income, profits and gains of
the said period, and, if an amount of tax has already been paid in respect of
the income, profits and gains of the previous year exceeding the amount payable
on the basis of such assessment, a refund shall be given of the
difference." The section does not regard a mere change in the personnel of
the partners as amounting to succession and disregards such a change. It
follows from the provisions of the section that a mere change in the
constitution of the partnership does not necessarily bring into existence a new
assessable unit or a distinct assessable entity and in such a case there is no devolution
of the business as a whole.
It is true that under the law of partnership
a firm has no legal existence apart from its partners and it is merely a
compendious name to describe its partners but it is also equally true that
under that law there is no dissolution of the firm by the mere incoming or
outgoing of partners. A partner can retire with the consent of the other
partners and a person can be introduced in the partnership by the consent of
the other partners. The reconstituted firm can carry on its business in the
same firm's name till dissolution. The law with respect to retiring partners as
enacted in the Partnership Act is to a certain extent a compromise between the
strict doctrine of English common law which refuses to see anything in the firm
but a collective name for individuals carrying on business in partnership and
the mercantile usage which recognizes the firm as a distinct person or quasi
corporation. But under the Income-tax Act the position is somewhat different. A
firm can be charged as a distinct assessable entity as distinct from its 176
partners who can also be assessed individually. Section 3 which is the charging
section is in these terms:
Where any Central Act enacts that income-tax
shall be charged for any year at any rate or rates tax at that rate or those
rates shall be charged for that year in accordance with, and subject to the
provisions of, this Act in respect of the total income of the previous year of
every individual, Hindu undivided family, company and local authority, and of
every firm and other association of persons or the partners of the firm or the
members of the association individually." The partners of the firm are
distinct assessable entities, while the firm as such is a separate and distinct
unit for purposes of assessment. Sections 26, 48 and 55 of the Act fully bear
out this position. These provisions of the Act go to show that the technical
view of the nature of a partnership under English law or Indian law cannot be
taken in applying the law of incometax. The true question to decide is one of
identity of the unit assessed under the Income-tax Act, 1918, which paid double
tax in the year 1939, with the unit to whose business the private limited
company succeeded in the year 1947. We have no doubt that the Tribunal and the
High Court were right in holding that in spite of the mere changes in the
constitution of the firm, the business of the firm as originally constituted
continued as tea brokers right from its inception till the time it was
succeeded by the limited company and that it was the same unit all through,
carrying on the same business, at the same place and there was no cesser of
that business or any change in the unit. Reference was made by Mr. Daphtary to
the partnership deed drawn up in 1945. It was argued that a different firm was
then constituted. The High Court refused to look into this document as it had
not been relied upon before the Tribunal and no reference bad been specifically
made to it in the order of the Incometax Officer or the Assistant Commissioner.
The Tribunal in spite of this document took the view that under the Partnership
Act a firm could be carried on even if there was a change in its constitution.
This 177 document is silent on the -question as to what happened to the assets
and liabilities of the firm that was, constituted under the deed of 1939. To
all intents and purposes the firm as reconstituted was not a different unit but
it remained the same unit in spite of the change in its constitution.
The result is that we see no substantial
grounds for disturbing the opinion given by the High Court on the question
submitted to it. The appeal therefore fails and is dismissed with costs.
Agent for the appellant: G. H. Rajadhyaksha.
Agent for the respondents: P. K. Chatterjee.