1997-VIL-99-ITAT-AHM
Equivalent Citation: ITD 064, 300, TTJ 060, 199,
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal AHMEDABAD
Date: 20.05.1997
SHREPAK ENTERPRISES.
Vs
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX.
JUDGMENT
Per Shri H.C. Shrivastava (Accountant Member)---During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noted that the assessee had received cash deposits of Rs. 2,17,000 as below :
Name of the Date of Mode of deposit and
Depositor Deposit the amount
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
M/s. Arvind Panalal 11-12-1990 In cash
Investment Pvt. Ltd. Rs. 15,000
-do- 17-12-1990 In cash
Rs. 30,000
-do- 8-12-1990 In cash
Rs. 1,72,000
--------------------------
Total Rs. 2,17,000
-------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to the Assessing Officer, this was in contravention of the provisions of section 269SS of the IT Act and after giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard, he came to a conclusion that the assessee was liable to be penalised under section 271D of the Act. Accordingly, he imposed a penalty of Rs. 2,17,000. When the matter was taken to the CIT(Appeals), he confirmed the penalty.
2. We have heard the assessee's counsel and the DR. According to the assessee's counsel under section 269SS, no person shall, after the 30th day of June, 1984, take or accept from any other person any loan or deposit otherwise than by an account payee cheque or account payee bank draft; if the amount of such loan or deposit or the aggregate amount of such loan and deposit; or on the date of taking or accepting such loan or deposit exceeds Rs. 20,000 or more. He submitted that, in this case, the amount was paid by the firm to the partners and vice versa. It was submitted that under the law of partnership, there is no distinction between the partner and firm. They are one and the same. It was submitted that a firm is a compendious name of all the partners taken together. Therefore, the payment, in this case, is not from one person to another. It is a payment to self. it may be treated as loan or deposit for the purposes of accounting only and not for the purposes of general law. He relied upon the following decisions :
CIT v. R.M. Chidambaram Pillai [1977] 106 ITR 292 (SC), Sunil Siddharthbhai v. CIT [1985] 156 ITR 509/23 Taxman 14W (SC), Malabar Fisheries Co. v. CIT [1979] 120 ITR 49/2 Taxman 409 (SC), Third ITO v. Arunagiri Chettiar [1996] 220 ITR 232/86 Taxman 330 (SC), (sic) 74 ITR 526 (Guj.), CIT v. Madhukant M. Mehta [1981] 132 ITR 159/5 Taxman 11 (Guj.), Vir Sales Corpn. v. Asstt. CIT [1994] 121 CTR (Ahd.) 46 and Mohamad Ali v. Karji Koudho Rayaguru AIR 1945 Pat. 286.
The DR invited our attention to the provisions of sections 188 & 189 of the I.T. Act to submit that a specific mention has been made in the Act where the firm and the partners are treated as separate entities. As far as section 269SS is concerned, the firm and partners are separate entities for the purposes of income-tax and for the purposes of application of the provisions of the Income-tax Act. He invited our attention to the decisions reported in CIT v. A. W. Figgies & Co. [1953] 24 ITR 405 (SC), (sic) 200 ITR 505, Chief Controlling Revenue Authority v. Manohar Lal Dudeja [1991] 189 ITR 186 (All.) (FB) Narayandas Kedarnath v. CIT [1952] 22 ITR 18 (Bom.) and CIT v. R. Rangaswamy Naidu [1997] 224 ITR 113 (Mad.). The assessee's counsel in reply submitted that section 188A has been specifically brought into existence to clarify what has already been taken for granted in general law. He invited our attention to section 48 of the Partnership Act.
We are of the opinion that in view of the departmental Circular No. 387 dated 6-7-1984 this provision was brought in to cover to those situations where unaccounted cash found in the course of search or was even explained by the tax payers as representing loans taken or deposits made by various persons. This particular section was brought in with a view to counter such tactics of the assessees in question. The clarification has been given in the departmental Circular No. 387 dated 6-7-1984, which is a clarification of binding nature on the departmental authorities. There is no dispute in this case that it is not a case where any search & seizure had taken place and it is also not a case of explaining deposits or loans taken through cash in past. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of R.M. Chidambaram Pillai held that a firm is not a legal person even though it has some attributes of personality. In Income income-tax law a firm is a unit of assessment, by special provisions, but is not a full person. Thus, in that case, it was held that the payment of salary to a partner represents a special share of profits. Salary paid to a partner retains the same character of the income of the firm. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, therefore, relying on the commentary of Lindley on Partnership held that the firm as such has no legal recognition. The law, ignoring the firm, looks to the partners composing it; any change amongst them destroys the identity of the firm; what is called the property of the firm is their property, and what are called the debts and liabilities of the firm are their debts and their liabilities. A partner may be a debtor or a creditor of his co-partners, but he cannot be either debtor or creditor of the firm of which he is himself a member, nor can he be employed by his firm, for a man cannot be his own employer. Therefore, it is obvious that in this case there cannot be a relationship of a debtor and creditor between the firm and the partners. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Narayandas Kedarnath, held that there is no presumption that all payments by the firm and the partners are separate payments. But in that case the Hon'ble High Court was not required to decide as to whether the firm and the partners are the same. It was a very narrow compass which was to be decided. The reliance of the department on the case of A. W. Figgies & Co. is also of no help to it. At page 409, the Hon'ble Supreme Court have held that the partners of the firm are distinct assessable entities, while the firm as such is a separate and distinct unit for purposes of assessment. It has been held that the provisions of the Income-tax 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 income-tax. Therefore, only for the purposes of making an assessment that the income-tax Act has made distinction between the firm and the partners. In general law, they continue to be one and the same. Therefore, the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court also does not help the department. Reliance of the department on the decision of the Madras High Court in the case of R. Rangaswamy Naidu is also not helpful. The Hon'ble Madras High Court have held that under the income-tax law, the position is different from general law and the firm and the partners are distinct assessable entities. The law has for some specific purposes relaxed its general rigid notions and extended a limited personality to a firm. Therefore, the Hon'ble Madras High Court has only stated that the firm and the partners are distinct assessable entities, but it has nowhere said that the firm is not a separate legal entity. The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Madhukant M. Mehta had also held that a firm has no distinct legal entity apart from the partners except that in Income-tax Act a firm is a unit of assessment and has certain attributes simulative of a personality. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Ramniklal Kothari [1969] 74 ITR 57 held, " ........ although for purposes of income-tax a firm has certain attributes simulative of personality, we have to take it that a partnership is not a person but plurality of a person. " In the classic decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Malabar Fisheries Co.'s case it has been held, " there is no transfer of assets involved even in the sense of any extinguishment of the firm's rights in the partnership assets when distribution takes place upon dissolution ". The Hon'ble ITAT --- Ahmedabad Bench 'C' in the case of Vir Sales Corpn. have held that transactions inter se between the sister concerns made with a view to meet the business necessity and made under the bona fide belief and with reasonable cause and no penalty is imposable under such circumstances. In this case, the department has nowhere challenged that the loans advanced are not genuine. The loans are genuine and they have not been made by one person to another person. As discussed above, they have been made by that person to himself in the eyes of law. The reliance of the department in the case of Lachhiram Puranmal v. ITO [1990] 184 ITR 186 (MP) is also not helpful for the department as the firm and partners are separate assessable units in the Income-tax Act. Therefore, if a disclosure was made in the hands of the firm, the benefit would go to the firm and not to the partners. The judgment of the Hon'ble High Court was on the facts of the case. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the payment of the amount was made by a partner to a firm is the payment itself to self and does not partake the character of loan or deposit in general law. Therefore, the provisions of section 269SS are not applicable to the facts of the case, and no penalty is imposable under section 271D. We also feel that the assessee could be under genuine impression that advancing of loan by a partner to firm is not a transfer from one person to the another and hence, there is no violation of provisions of section 269SS. In view of the above, we cancel the penalty imposed and allow the assessee's appeal.
3. The assessee's appeal is allowed
DISCLAIMER: Though all efforts have been made to reproduce the order accurately and correctly however the access, usage and circulation is subject to the condition that VATinfoline Multimedia is not responsible/liable for any loss or damage caused to anyone due to any mistake/error/omissions.