The Tax Publishers2005 TaxPub(DT) 1011 (P&H-HC) : (2005) 275 ITR 0595 : (2006) 200 CTR 0604 : (2005) 146 TAXMAN 0701

 

CIT v. Norton Motors ()

 

INCOME TAX

--Return of income----Dispute regarding share allocation in partnership firmWhether can be held invalid under section 292B--Assessee was originally a partnership firm of two partners. On 1-4-1976 a new partner was taken in and ratio of profit was modified. On 15-3-1978 two more partners were inducted in the firm and a fresh deed of partnership was also executed to which the registration was granted under section 185(1)(a). On filing the return, the assessing officer also determined its income. But after sometime the Commissioner issued a notice for withdrawal of registration for wrong allocation of profits to new partner. However, he did not cancel the registration and directed the ITO to change the share allocation among partners without issuing notice under section 158 r/w section 67. The Tribunal observed that the Commissioner should not have directed ITO without issuing notice under section 158 and allowed the appeal of the assessee. The assessee pleaded it to be a defect which could be remedied. The court observed that order under section 158 is altogether a separate order then passed under section 185(1)(a). The Commissioner did not assume jurisdiction nor issued any show-cause notice before modifying the order passed under section 158 r/w sections 187(1) & section 67. Held: No notice was issued to the assessee under section 158 r/w section 187 & 67 for proposing to change the share allocation. The assessee did not get an opportunity to make representation. The Commissioner had not assumed jurisdiction to direct ITO to modify the order passed by him under section 158 which was ab initio void. The order passed by the Commissioner could not be sustained by relying on section 292B which can only be relied upon if there is technical defect or omission in the notice, etc. The reference answered in favour of assessee. [Paras 13 & 14]

Income Tax Act, 1961 s.292B



CIT v. Norton Motors

In the Punjab & Haryana High Court G.S. Singhvi & M.M. Aggarwal, JJ.

IT Reference No 53 of 1987 30 November 2004

Counsel : Rajesh Bindal, for the Applicant.

JUDGMENT

G.S. Singhvi, J.

In compliance with the direction issued by this court I.T.C. No. 60 of 1985, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'), has referred the following question of law for the opinion of this Court:

'Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the Commissioner of Income-tax did not hold jurisdiction to modify the order under section 158/185(1)(a)?'

2. The respondent-assessee was constituted as a partnership firm on 2-4-1973. Initially, it comprised the following partners:

(i)

Shri Mukat Behari Lal

60 per cent

(ii)

Shri Anil Mittal

40 per cent

3. On 1-4-1976, Shri Deepak Mittal was taken as a new partner and the ratio of profit-sharing was modified as under:

(i)

Shri Mukat Behri Lal

1/3

(ii)

Shri Anil Mittal

1/3

(iii)

Shri Deepak Mittal

1/3

4. The constitution of the firm was again changed through a fresh deed of partnership executed on 15-3-1978, and Shri Rajinder Kumar, trustee of Smt. Nirdosh Mittal Family Trust and Shri Jai Parkash, trustee of Smt. Neeru Mittal Family Trust were taken as partners. The share allocation amongst the partners was decided in the following ratio:

Shri Mukat Behari Lal Karta of HUF

20 per cent

Shri Deepak Mittal

20 per cent

Shri Anil Mittal

20 per cent

Shri Rajinder Kumar, trustee of Shri Nirdosh Mittal Family Trust

20 per cent

Shri Jai Prakash, trustee of Smt. Neeru Mittal Family Trust

20 per cent

5. By an order dated 18-5-1980, the Income Tax Officer, 'A' Ward, Ambala (hereinafter referred to as 'the Assessing Authority'), granted registration to the new firm under section 185(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').

6. The assessee filed return for the assessment year 1978-79 declaring an income of Rs. 1,49,574. The distribution of income shown among the partners was as under:

SL No.

Name of partner

Percentage of profit

Business income

Interest

Share of business income

(i)

Sh. M.B. Lal HUF

20%

22,603

2,766

25,369

(ii)

Sh. Deepak Mittal

20%

22,602

2,586

25,185

(iii)

Sh. Anil Mittal

20%

22,602

5,904

28,506

(iv)

Neeru Mittal Family Trust

20%

22,602

75

22,677

(v)

Nirdosh Mittal Family Trust

20%

22,602

50

22,652

7. The assessing officer determined the income of the assessee at Rs. 1,46,510. After sometime, the Commissioner of Income-tax (hereinafter referred to as 'the CIT'), issued notice dated 14-4-1982, to the assessee requiring it to show cause as to why the registration may not be withdrawn on the ground that the newly inducted partners had been wrongly allowed shares in the profits for the whole of the year. In the reply filed on behalf of the assessee, it was claimed that the difference in sharing of the profits could not be made a ground for withdrawing the registration. It was also pleaded that the error/mistake in the sharing of profits could, at the best, be taken as a defect which could be remedied by the Income Tax Officer under section 185(2) of the Act.

8. After hearing the representative of the assessee, the Commissioner of Income-tax held that the distribution of profits for the entire year made by the firm amongst five partners in the ratio of the partnership deed executed on 15-3-1978, is not in accordance with the law. Accordingly, he directed the Income Tax Officer to reallocate the profits among the three partners, namely, Sarvshri Mukat Bihari Lal, Anil Mittal and Deepak Mittal, in equal shares on the basis of partnership deed dated 1-4-1976.

9. The appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax was allowed by the Tribunal vide its order dated 22-8-1984. The Tribunal noted that the Commissioner of Income-tax had proposed cancellation of the registration granted to the firm on the ground of violation of the conditions of the partnership deed in the matter of allocation of shares among the partners, but ultimately did not cancel the registration and held that the Commissioner of Income-tax could not have directed the Income Tax Officer to change the share allocation among the partners without issuing notice under section 158 read with section 67 of the Act.

10. Shri Rajesh Bindal, learned counsel for the revenue, fairly stated that the notice issued by the Commissioner of Income-tax was confined to the proposed cancellation of registration on the ground of incorrect allocation of shares among the partners and that no notice was given to the assessee proposing to change the allocation of shares among the partners, but argued that this defect in the procedure adopted by the Commissioner of Income-tax was not sufficient to invalidate the order passed by him. Shri Bindal relied on section 292B of the Act and argued that the mere defect in the notice cannot be made a ground for invalidating an action taken by the competent authority which is otherwise in conformity with law.

11. In our opinion, there is no merit in the contention of learned counsel. While examining the legality of a show-cause notice issued by the Commissioner of Income-tax and the order passed by him for reallocation of the shares among the partners, the Tribunal noticed the plea of the revenue that the defect in the notice was liable to be ignored in view of section 292B of the Act and observed as under:

'A cursory look at the show-cause notice issued by the Commissioner and even the order passed by him clearly shows that the Commissioner wanted to cancel the order of registration passed by the Income Tax Officer under section 185(1)(a). This ultimately he did not do. The share allocation amongst the partners was a ground taken by him for cancellation of registration already granted and not that the order passed by the Income Tax Officer allocating the share income was intended to be modified or cancelled. An assessment order passed by an assessing officer is a composite order bringing together the orders passed under various sections. To illustrate, if there is a dispute about the previous year of the assessee, it is to be determined keeping in view the provisions of section 3 of the Income Tax Act. Again dispute about the status has also to be specifically dealt with. Firm is a status. There may be dispute whether the assessee is a firm or an association of persons or body of individuals. This has to be specifically determined. Not only this, the firm has been given certain concessions in the matter of taxation. For that purpose, it has to get itself registered with the Income-tax department under section 185(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act after making an application under section 184. If the Income Tax Officer finds that the firm was genuine and entitled to registration then he will record a certificate and the registered firm will be entitled to concessional rates of tax. Then follows the quantum of income to be incorporated in the assessment order. In the case of a registered firm, profits of the firm have to be allocated amongst the partners. Then the Income Tax Officer has to pass an order under section 158 of the Income Tax Act. While passing this order, he has to keep in view the provisions contained in section 187(1), proviso (i), and section 67 of the Income Tax Act. It would thus be seen that the various aspects of the assessment order have to be independently determined and then put together in a composite order. One of such issues is the determination of the status of the firm as a registered or unregistered firm. It is determined under section 185. We have pointed out earlier that the order sought to be cancelled or modified by the Commissioner of Income-tax was the one passed by the Income Tax Officer under section 185(1)(a). Ultimately, he has not cancelled this order. The ground taken was that the share allocation was not correctly made. After taking into consideration the submissions of the assessee, the Commissioner of Income-tax was convinced that the share allocation was correctly made. That is why he did not think it fit to cancel the order passed by the Income Tax Officer under section 185(1)(a) granting registration to the firm. The Commissioner of Income-tax having accepted the order of the Income Tax Officer passed under section 185(1)(a) as not erroneous, the cause of action by him came to an end there.

We have already pointed out above that the order under section 158 is altogether a separate order from the order passed under section 185(1)(a). The Commissioner of Income-tax did not assume jurisdiction nor did he issue any show-cause notice before modifying the order passed under section 158 read with section 187(1), proviso, and section 67 of the Income Tax Act. He has also not mentioned in his order as to how this order was erroneous inasmush as it did not affect the tax liability of the firm. We are not inclined to agree with the learned departmental Representative that section 292B will cure the situation. Section 292B will be available where an officer has validly acquired jurisdiction. It is not meant to confer jurisdiction when such jurisdiction was not assumed. Undoubtedly, there is mention about wrong allocation of share income amongst the partners but that was in the context of cancelling the order of registration passed by the Income Tax Officer under section 185(1)(a) and not for the purposes of modifying the order passed by the Income Tax Officer under section 158 read with section 187(1), proviso, and section 67. The Commissioner of Income-tax having not exercised the jurisdiction, his order modifying the order passed by the Income Tax Officer under section 158 is ab initio void. Since we have held that the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax modifying the order passed under section 158 is without jurisdiction, we do not consider it necessary to go into the contention of Mr. Bali that the same is erroneous read with the assessment orders in the cases of the partners. For the detailed reasons given above, we are unable to sustain the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax. It is cancelled.'

12. Section 292B of the Act, on which reliance has been placed by learned counsel for the revenue, reads as under:

'Return of income, etc., not to be invalid on certain grounds. No return of income, assessment, notice, summons or other proceeding furnished or made or issued, or taken or purported to have been furnished or made or issued or taken in pursuance of any of the provisions of this Act shall be invalid or shall be deemed to be invalid merely by reason of any mistake, defect or omission in such return of income, assessment, notice, summons or other proceeding if such return of income, assessment, notice, summons or other proceeding is in substance and effect in conformity with or according to the intent and purpose of this Act.'

13. A reading of the above reproduced provision makes it clear that a mistake, defect or omission in the return of income ' assessment, notice, summons or other proceeding is not sufficient to invalidate an action taken by the competent authority, provided that such return of income, assessment, notice, summons or other proceeding is in substance and effect in conformity with or according to the provisions of the Act. To put it differently, section 292B can be relied upon for resisting a challenge to the notice, etc., only if there is a technical defect or omission in it. However, there is nothing in the plain language of that section from which it can be inferred that the same can be relied upon for curing a jurisdictional defect in the assessment notice, summons or other proceeding. In other words, if the notice, summons or other proceeding taken by an authority suffers from an inherent lacuna affecting his/its jurisdiction, the same cannot be cured by having resort to section 292B.

14. The facts of the case in hand show that the Commissioner of Income tax had issued notice to the assessee proposing to cancel the registration of firm on the ground of error in the allocation of shares among the partners, but no notice was issued under section 158 read with sections 187 and 67 of the Act proposing to change the share allocation among the partners and the assessee did not get an opportunity to make representation in this regard. Therefore, the Commissioner of Income-tax did not have the jurisdiction to direct modification of the order passed by the Income Tax Officer under section 158 of the Act and the order passed by him cannot be sustained by relying on section 292B of the Act. As a corollary to this, we hold that the Tribunal did not commit any illegality by setting aside his order.

15. In the result, the question referred by the Tribunal is answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue.

OPEN

SUBSCRIBE TaxPublishers.inSUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT

TaxPublishers.in

'Kedarnath', 7, Avadh Vihar, Near Nirali Dhani,

Chopasni Road

Jodhpur - 342 008 (Rajasthan) INDIA

Phones : 9785602619 (11 am - 5 pm)

E-Mail : mail@taxpublishers.in / mail.taxpublishers@gmail.com