High Court Of Madras
CIT vs. Greenham Estates Pvt. Ltd.
Section 3(1)(f)
Asst. Year 1982-83, 1983-84, 1984-85
R. Jayasimha Babu & C. Nagappan, JJ.
T.C. Nos. 746 to 748 of 1992
1st August, 2001
Counsel Appeared
Mrs. Chitra Venkataraman, for the Revenue
JUDGMENT
R. JAYASIMHA BABU, J. :
The plain words used in s. 3(1)(f), as it stood, during the asst. yrs. 1982-83 to 1984-85, have been misconstrued by the Tribunal by placing reliance on the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of CIT vs. R.Y. Singara Mudaliar (1988) 73 CTR (AP) 158 : (1988) 172 ITR 608 (AP) which judgment did not anywhere refer to s. 3(1)(f), though the decision rendered in that case supports the view of the Tribunal.
2. Sec. 3(1)(f) of the IT Act, 1961, as it stood at the relevant time reads thus : “3. ‘Previous year’ defined. (1) For the purposes of this Act, ‘previous year’, means : (f) where the assessee is a partner in a firm and the firm has been assessed as such, then, in respect of the assessee’s share in the income of the firm, the period determined as the previous year for the assessment of the income of the firm.” This sub-cl. (f) is unambiguous which provides that the share income of the partners in a firm shall be computed for the same period for which the income of the firm is computed for the purpose of assessment to tax. That also stands to reason as the computed of the share of the partner in the income of the firm can be made only when the income of the firm and accounts of the firm for the year are finalised. This sub-clause does not deal with all the income of the assessee who happens to be a partner in a firm. It is only concerned with the assessee’s share income in his capacity as a partner. In cases where the “previous year” followed by an assessee is different from the :previous year” followed by the firm in respect of the share in the income of the firm, the “previous year” followed by the firm is necessarily to be regarded as the “previous year” for the assessment of the share income of the partners of the firm, although for the other income of the assessee, the assessee’s previous year is to be followed. The other sub-clauses of s. 3(1) do not in any manner control s. 3 (1)(f) which deals with one type of income and fixes the previous year in respect of that income alone.
3. With respect of the learned judges of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, we are unable to subscribe to their view that the date of closure of the accounts of the assessee will determine the previous year and the previous year for the share income of the partner need not be the previous year followed by the firm. A view similar to ours is the view taken by the Kerala, Calcutta and Bombay High Courts. The judgment of the Kerala High Court in the case of New Ambadi Estates Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT (1997) 141 CTR (Ker) 8 : (1997) 228 ITR 141 (Ker), that of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Biswanath Goenka vs. CIT (1990) 84 CTR (Cal) 138 : (1991) 189 ITR 687 (Cal) and that of the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. McKenzies Ltd. (1979) 13 CTR (Bom) 249 : (1980) 121 ITR 458 (Bom). The question referred to us is, therefore, answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.
4. The Tribunal was not right in holding that notwithstanding the previous year with reference to which the firm was assessed being the financial year, the share income of the assessee as a partner in the firm was required to be assessed with reference to the calendar year as the “previous year”.
[Citation : 254 ITR 402]