ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION
On retirement of a
partner from a partnership firm, at times the outgoing partner may be paid an amount
which is in excess of his capital, current account and loan balances with the
firm. Such amount paid to the outgoing partner is often determined on the basis
of an informal valuation of the net assets of the firm, or of the business of
the firm.
Taxation of such
receipts by a partner on retirement from a partnership firm has been an issue
which has been the subject matter of disputes for several decades. As far back
as in September, 1979, the Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Fisheries
Co. vs. CIT 120 ITR 49, held that dissolution of a firm did not amount
to extinguishment of rights in partnership assets and was thus not a ‘transfer’
within the meaning of section 2(47). In 1987, the Supreme Court, in a short
decision in Addl. CIT vs. Mohanbhai Pamabhai 165 ITR 166,
affirmed the view taken by the Gujarat High Court in 1973 in the case of CIT
vs. Mohanbhai Pamabhai 91 ITR 393. In that case, the Gujarat High Court
had held that when a partner retires from a partnership and the amount of his
share in the net partnership assets after deduction of liabilities and prior
charges is determined on taking accounts on footing of notional sale of
partnership assets and given to him, what he receives is his share in the
partnership and not any consideration for transfer of his interest in
partnership to the continuing partners. Therefore, charge of capital gains tax
would not apply on such retirement.
The law is amended
by the Finance Act, 1987 with effect from Assessment Year 1988-89 by insertion
of section 45(4) and simultaneous deletion of section 47(ii). Section 47(ii)
earlier provided that distribution of assets on dissolution of a firm would not
be regarded as a transfer. Section 45(4) now provides as under:
‘The profits or
gains arising from the transfer of a capital asset by way of distribution of
capital assets on the dissolution of a firm or other association of persons or
body of individuals (not being a company or a co-operative society) or
otherwise, shall be chargeable to tax as the income of the firm, association or
body, of the previous year in which the said transfer takes place and, for the
purposes of section 48, the fair market value of the asset on the date of such
transfer shall be deemed to be the full value of the consideration received or
accruing as a result of the transfer.’
Section 45(4), with
its introduction, so far as the firm is concerned, provides for taxing the firm
on distribution of its assets on dissolution or otherwise. However, even
subsequent to these amendments, the taxability of the excess amounts received
by the partner on retirement from the firm, in his hands, has continued to be a
matter of dispute before the Tribunals and the High Courts. While the Pune,
Hyderabad, Mumbai and Bangalore benches have taken the view that such excess
amounts are chargeable to tax as capital gains in the hands of the partner, the
Mumbai, Chennai, Bangalore and Hyderabad benches have taken the view that such
amounts are not taxable in the hands of the retiring partner. Further, while
the Bombay, Andhra Pradesh and Madras High Courts have taken the view that such
amount is not taxable in the hands of the partner, the Delhi High Court has
taken the view that it is taxable in the hands of the partner as capital gains.
THE HEMLATA S. SHETTY CASE
The issue came up
before the Mumbai bench of the Tribunal in the case of Hemlata S. Shetty
vs. ACIT [ITA Nos. 1514/Mum/2010 and 6513/Mum/2011 dated 1st December, 2015].
In this case,
relating to A.Y. 2006-07, the assessee was a partner in a partnership firm of
D.S. Corporation where she had a 20% profit share. The partnership firm had
acquired a plot of land in September, 2005 for Rs. 6.50 crores. At that time,
the original capital contributions of the partners was Rs. 3.20 crores, the
partners being the assessee’s husband (Sudhakar M. Shetty) and another person.
The assessee became a partner in the partnership firm on 16th
September, 2005, contributing a capital of Rs. 52.50 lakhs. On 26th
September, 2005 three more partners were admitted to the partnership firm. Most
of the tenants occupying the land were vacated by paying them compensation, and
the Ministry of Tourism’s approval was received for setting up a five-star
hotel on the plot of land.
On 27th
March, 2006 the assessee and her husband retired from the partnership firm, at
which point of time the land was revalued at Rs. 193.91 crores and the surplus
on revaluation was credited to the partners’ capital accounts. The assessee and
her husband each received an amount of Rs. 30.88 crores on their retirement
from the partnership firm, over and above their capital account balances.
The A.O. noted that
the revaluation of land resulted in a notional profit of Rs. 154.40 crores for
the firm and 20% share therein of the assessee and her husband at Rs. 30.88
crores each was credited to their accounts. No tax was paid on such revalued
profits on the plea that those amounts were exempt u/s 10(2A). The A.O. held
that the excess amount received on retirement from the partnership firm was
liable to tax as short-term capital gains as there was a transfer within the
meaning of section 2(47) on retirement of the partner.
The Commissioner
(Appeals), on appeal, confirmed the order of the A.O.
Before the
Tribunal, on behalf of the assessee, reliance was placed on a decision of the
Bombay High Court in the case of Prashant S. Joshi vs. ITO 324 ITR 154,
where the Bombay High Court had quashed the reassessment proceedings initiated
to tax such excess amount received on retirement of a partner from the
partnership firm, on the ground that the amount was a capital receipt not
chargeable to tax and the reopening of the case was not maintainable.
It was argued on
behalf of the Department that the Tribunal had decided the issue against the
assessee in the case of the assessee’s husband, Sudhakar M. Shetty vs.
ACIT 130 ITD 197, on 9th September, 2010. In that case, the
Tribunal had referred to the observations of the Bombay High Court in the case
of CIT vs. Tribhuvandas G. Patel 115 ITR 95, where the Court had
held that there were two modes of retirement of a partner from a partnership
firm; in one case, a retiring partner, while going out, might assign his
interest by a deed; and in the other case, he might, instead of assigning his
interest, take the amount due to him from the firm and give a receipt for the
money and acknowledge that he had no more claim on his co-partners. In that
case, the Bombay High Court held that where, instead of quantifying his share
by taking accounts on the footing of a notional sale, the parties agreed to pay
a lump sum in consideration of the retiring partner assigning or relinquishing
his share or right in the partnership and its assets in favour of the
continuing partners, the transaction would amount to transfer within the
meaning of section 2(47). This view was followed by the Bombay High Court in
subsequent decisions in the cases of CIT vs. H.R. Aslot 115 ITR 255
and N.A.Mody vs. CIT 162 ITR 420, and the Delhi High Court in the
case of Bishan Lal Kanodia vs. CIT 257 ITR 449.
In the case of Sudhakar
Shetty (Supra), the Tribunal observed that in deciding the case of Prashant
S. Joshi (Supra), the Bombay High Court had not considered its earlier
decisions in the cases of N.A. Mody (Supra) and H.R. Aslot
(Supra) and the said decision was rendered by the Court in the context
of the validity of the notice u/s 148, and therefore the ratio of the
decision in that case did not apply to the facts of the case before it in the Sudhakar
Shetty case.
On behalf of the
assessee, Hemlata Shetty, it was pointed out to the Tribunal that, after the
Tribunal’s decision in Sudhakar Shetty’s case, the Department had
reopened the assessment of the firm where the assessee and her husband were
partners and assessed the notional profits as income in the hands of the firm
u/s 45(4). It was argued that the Department had realised the mistake that it
could not have assessed the partners on account of receipt on retirement u/s
45(4). It was therefore pointed out that due to subsequent developments, the
facts and circumstances had changed from those prevalent when the Tribunal had
decided the case of Sudhakar Shetty.
It was further
argued on behalf of the assessee that after the judgment in the Sudhakar
Shetty case on 9th September, 2010, a similar matter had
been decided by the Mumbai bench of the Tribunal in the case of R.F.
Nangrani HUF vs. DCIT [ITA No. 6124/Mum/2012] on 10th
December, 2014, where the decision in Sudhakar Shetty’s case was
also referred to. The issue in that case was similar to the issue in the case
of Hemlata Shetty. In R.F. Nangrani HUF’s case, the
Tribunal had followed the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT
vs. R. Lingamallu Rajkumar 247 ITR 801, where it had held that the
amount received on retirement by a partner was not liable to capital gains tax,
and the Tribunal in that case had also considered the decision of the Hyderabad
bench in ACIT vs. N. Prasad 153 ITD 257, which had taken a
similar view. It was argued on behalf of the assessee that when there were
conflicting decisions delivered by a bench of equal strength, the later
judgment should be followed, especially when the earlier judgment was referred
to while deciding the matter in the later judgment.
The Tribunal noted
that in the case of CIT vs. Riyaz A. Shaikh 221 Taxman 118, the
Bombay High Court referred to the fact that the Tribunal in that case had
followed the Bombay High Court decision in Prashant S. Joshi’s
case, while noting that Tribuvandas G. Patel’s case, which had
been followed in N.A. Mody’s case, had been reversed by the
Supreme Court. The Bombay High Court further noted in Riyaz Shaikh’s
case that Prashant Joshi’s case had also noted this fact of
reversal, and that it had followed the decision of the Supreme Court in R.
Lingamallu Rajkumar’s case 247 ITR 801.
The Tribunal
therefore followed the decision of the jurisdictional High Court in Riyaz
Shaikh’s case and held that the amount received by the assessee on
retirement from the partnership firm was not taxable under the head ‘Capital
Gains’.
This decision of
the Tribunal in Hemlata Shetty’s case has been approved by the
Bombay High Court in Principal CIT vs. Hemlata S. Shetty 262 Taxman 324.
R.F. Nangrani HUF’s Tribunal decision has also been approved by the
Bombay High Court in Principal CIT vs. R.F. Nangrani HUF 93 taxmann.com
302. A similar view has also been taken by the Andhra Pradesh High
Court in the case of CIT vs. P.H. Patel 171 ITR 128, though this
related to A.Y. 1973-74, a period prior to the deletion of clause (ii) of
section 47. Further, in the case of CIT vs. Legal Representative of N.
Paliniappa Goundar (Decd.) 143 ITR 343, the Madras High Court also
accepted the Gujarat High Court’s view in the case of Mohanbhai Pamabhai
(Supra) and disagreed with the view of the Bombay High Court in the
case of Tribhuvandas G. Patel (Supra), holding that excess amount
received by a partner on retirement was not taxable.
A similar view has
also been taken by the Mumbai bench of the Tribunal in the case of James
P. D’Silva vs. DCIT 175 ITD 533, following the Bombay High Court
decisions in Prashant S. Joshi and Riyaz A. Shaikh’s
cases and by the Bangalore bench in the case of Prabhuraj B. Appa, 6 SOT
419 and by the Chennai bench in the case of P. Sivakumar (HUF),
63 SOT 91.
SAVITRI KADUR’S CASE
The issue again
came up before the Bangalore bench of the Tribunal recently in the case of Savitri
Kadur vs. DCIT 177 ITD 259.
In this case, the
assessee and another person had formed a partnership with effect from 1st
April, 2004. Yet another person was admitted as a partner with effect from 1st
April, 2007, and simultaneously the assessee retired from the firm with effect
from that date. The assessee had a capital balance of Rs. 1.64 crores as on 1st
April, 2006 and her share in the profit for the year of Rs. 46 lakhs was
credited to her account. The land and building held by the firm was revalued
and her share of Rs. 62.51 lakhs in the surplus on revaluation was credited to
her account. Interest on capital of Rs. 18.12 lakhs was also credited to her
account which, after deducting drawings, showed a balance of Rs. 2.78 crores as
on the date of her retirement. The assessee was paid a sum of Rs. 3.40 crores
on her retirement. The assessee had invested an amount of Rs. 50 lakhs in
capital gains bonds.
The difference of
Rs. 62 lakhs between Rs. 3.40 crores and Rs. 2.78 crores was taxed as capital
gains by the A.O. in her hands. According to the A.O., such amount was nothing
but a payment for her giving up her right in the existing goodwill of the firm,
that there was a transfer u/s 2(47) on her retirement, which was therefore
liable to capital gains tax.
The Commissioner
(Appeals) upheld the order of the A.O., placing reliance on the decision of the
Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. A.N. Naik Associates 265 ITR 346,
where the High Court had held that there was a charge to capital gains tax u/s
45(4) when the assets of the partnership were distributed even on retirement of
a partner, and the scope of section 45(4) was not restricted to the case of
dissolution of the firm alone.
On appeal, the
Tribunal observed that it was necessary to appreciate how the act of the
formation, introduction, retirement and dissolution of partnership was used by
assessees as a device to evade tax on capital gains; first by converting an
asset held individually into an asset of the firm and later on retiring from
the firm; and likewise by conversion of capital assets of the firm into assets
of the partners by effecting dissolution or retirement. In that direction, the
Tribunal analysed the background and tax implications behind conversion of
individual assets into assets of partnership, distribution of assets on
dissolution, reconstitution of the firm with the firm continuing whereby a
partner retired and the retiring partner was allotted a capital asset of the
firm for relinquishing all his rights and interests in the partnership firm as
partner, and continuation of the firm after reconstitution whereby a partner
retired and the retiring partner was paid a consideration for relinquishing all
his rights and interests in the partnership firm as partner in any of the
following manner:
(a) on the basis of
amount lying in his / her capital account, or
(b) on the basis of
amount lying in his / her capital account plus amount over and above the sum
lying in his / her capital account, or
(c) a lump sum consideration with no reference to
the amount lying in his / her capital account.
The Tribunal
thereafter held that the case of the appellant, on the basis of the facts
before it, was a situation falling under (b) above, meaning that the assessee
on her retirement from the firm was paid on the basis of the amount lying in
her capital account plus an amount over and above the sum lying in her capital
account.
The Tribunal
observed that:
(i) there was no
dispute that there could not be any incidence of tax in situation (a) above on
account of the Supreme Court decision in the case of Additional CIT vs.
Mohanbhai Pamabhai (Supra);
(ii) so far as
situations (b) and (c) were concerned, they had been the subject matter of
consideration in several cases, and there had been conflict of opinion between
courts on whether there would be incidence of tax or not;
(iii) the fact that
there was revaluation of assets of the firm with a resultant enhancement of the
capital accounts of the partners was not relevant.
The Tribunal
further observed that:
(1) the share or
interest of a partner in the partnership and its assets would be property and,
therefore, a capital asset within the meaning of the aforesaid definition. To
this extent, there could be no doubt;
(2) the question
was whether it could be said that there was a transfer of capital asset by the
retiring partner in favour of the firm and its continuing partners so as to
attract a charge u/s 45;
(3) the share or
interest of a partner in the partnership and its assets would be property and,
therefore, a capital asset within the meaning of the aforesaid definition. The
next question was whether it could be said that there was a transfer of capital
asset by the retiring partner in favour of the firm and its continuing partners
so as to attract a charge u/s 45;
(4) the question
whether there would be incidence of tax on capital gains on retirement of a
partner from the partnership firm would depend upon the mode in which
retirement was effected. Therefore, taxability in such a situation would depend
on several factors like the intention, as was evidenced by the various clauses
of the instrument evincing retirement or dissolution, the manner in which the
accounts had been settled and whether the same included any amount in excess of
the share of the partner on the revaluation of assets and other relevant
factors which would throw light on the entire scheme of retirement /
reconstitution;
(5) for the
purposes of computation, what was to be seen was the credit in the capital
account of the partner alone.
The Tribunal,
referring to the observations of the Bombay High Court in the case of Tribhuvandas
G. Patel (Supra), held that the terms of the deed of retirement had to
be seen as to whether they constituted a release of any assets of the firm in
favour of the continuing partners; where on retirement an account was taken and
the partner was paid the amount standing to the credit of his capital account,
there would be no transfer and no tax was exigible; however, where the partner
was paid a lump sum consideration for transferring or releasing his interest in
the partnership’s assets to the continuing partners, there would be a transfer,
liable to tax. The Tribunal noted that the Supreme Court, in appeal in that
case, had held that there was no incidence of tax on capital gains on the
transaction only because of the provisions of section 47(ii), which exempted
the distribution of capital assets on dissolution, even though the facts in the
case in appeal before the Supreme Court were concerning the case of a retiring
partner giving up his rights over the properties of the firm.
The Tribunal
referred to the cases of the Pune bench in the case of Shevantibhai C.
Mehta 4 SOT 94 and the Mumbai bench of the Tribunal in the case of Sudhakar
M. Shetty (Supra) and held that the facts in the case before it were
almost identical to the facts in the case of Sudhakar M. Shetty.
It distinguished
the other cases cited before it on behalf of the assessee on the grounds that
some of those cases related to a period prior to the amendment of the law made
effective from A.Y. 1988-89, or were cases where the issue involved was whether
the reassessment proceedings were valid, or were cases involving the
partnership firm and not the partner, or were cases where the retiring partner
was paid a share in the goodwill of the firm. In short, the Tribunal held that
those cases were not applicable to the facts of the assessee’s case.
The Tribunal
finally upheld the action of the A.O. in taxing the excess paid to the retiring
partner over and above the sum standing to the credit of her capital account as
capital gains. However, it modified the computation of the capital gains by
treating the amount lying to the credit of the partner’s account, including the
amount credited towards goodwill in the partner’s capital account, as a cost
and allowing the deduction thereof. It also held the gains to be long-term
capital gains and allowed exemption u/s 54EC to the extent of investment in
capital gains bonds.
A similar view has
been taken by the other benches of the Tribunal in the cases of Shevantibhai
C. Mehta (Supra), Sudhakar M. Shetty (Supra) and Smt. Girija
Reddy vs. ITO 52 SOT 113 (Hyd)(URO). The Delhi High Court also, in a
case relating to A.Y. 1975-76 (before the amendment), Bishan Lal Kanodia
vs. CIT 257 ITR 449, followed the decision of the Bombay High Court in Tribhuvandas
G. Patel (Supra) to hold that the receipt on retirement was liable to
capital gains tax.
OBSERVATIONS
To understand the
root of the controversy, one would have to go back to the decision of the
Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Mohanbhai Pamabhai 91 ITR 393,
which was affirmed by the Supreme Court, 165 ITR 166, holding
that there was no transfer of capital assets by a partner on his retirement. In
that case, on retirement, the assessee received a certain amount in respect of
his share in the partnership which was worked out by taking the proportionate
value of a share in the partnership assets, after deduction of liabilities and
prior charges, including an amount representing his proportionate share in the
value of the goodwill. It was this proportionate share in the goodwill which
was sought to be taxed as capital gains by the authorities.
In that case, the
Gujarat High Court held that:
(i) what the
retiring partner was entitled to get was not merely a share in the partnership
assets, he has also to bear his share of the debts and liabilities, and it was
only his share in the net partnership assets, after satisfying the debts and
liabilities, that he was entitled to get on retirement;
(ii) Since it was only in the surplus that the
retiring partner was entitled to claim a share, it was not possible to predicate
that a particular amount was received by the retiring partner in respect of his
share in a particular partnership asset, or that a particular amount
represented a consideration received by the retiring partner for extinguishment
of his interest in a particular partnership asset;
(iii) when the
assessee retired from the firm, there was no transfer of interest of the
assessee in the goodwill or any other asset of the firm;
(iv) no
consideration received or accrued as a result of such transfer of such interest
even if there was a transfer; and
(v) no part of the amount received by the assessee
was assessable to capital gains tax u/s 45.
The Gujarat High
Court relied on its earlier decision in the case of CIT vs. R.M. Amin 82
ITR 194, for the proposition that where transfer consisted in
extinguishment of a right in a capital asset, unless there was an element of
consideration for such extinguishment, the transfer would not be liable to
capital gains tax.
It may be noted
that in Mohanbhai Pamabhai, the document pursuant to which
retirement was effected stated that the amount had been decided as payable to
the retiring partners in lieu of all their rights, interest and share in
the partnership firm, and each of them voluntarily gave up their right, title
and interest in the partnership firm. The goodwill had not been recorded or
credited to the capital accounts of the partners, and therefore it was a (b)
type of situation classified by the Bangalore Tribunal. The Bangalore bench of
the Tribunal therefore does not seem to have been justified in stating that
only cases where only balance standing to credit of the capital account is paid
to the retiring partner [situation (a) cases] are not transfers as was held by
the Supreme Court in Mohanbhai Pamabhai. In other words, the
facts of the Mohanbhai Pamabhai case classified with situation
(b) and the Tribunal overlooked this fact; had it done so by appreciating that
the facts in the case before the Supreme Court were akin to situation (b), the
decision could have been different.
The Supreme Court
approved the Gujarat High Court decision on the footing that there was no
transfer within the meaning of section 2(47) on retirement of a partner from a
partnership firm. By implication, the Supreme Court held that such cases of
retirement, where a partner was paid a sum over and above the balance due as
per the books of accounts, was not chargeable to capital gains tax.
Interestingly, in deciding the case the Supreme Court, while holding that the
receipts in question were not taxable, did not distinguish between different
modes of retirement, as some of the Tribunals and High Courts have sought to
do, for taxing some and exempting others.
The Tribhuvandas
G. Patel case (Supra) was one where the retiring partner was paid his
share in the goodwill of the firm and was also paid his share of appreciation
in the assets of the firm. Here, relying on the Commentary of Lindley on
Partnership, the Bombay High Court observed as under:
‘Further, under
section 32, which occurs in Chapter V, retirement of a partner may take any
form as may be agreed upon between the partners and can occur in three
situations contemplated by clauses (a), (b) and (c) of sub-section (1) of
section 32. It may be that upon retirement of a partner his share in the net
partnership assets after deduction of liabilities and prior charges may be
determined on taking accounts on the footing of notional sale of partnership
assets and be paid to him, but the determination and payment of his share may
not invariably be done in that manner and it is quite conceivable that, without
taking accounts on the footing of notional sale, by mutual agreement, a
retiring partner may receive an agreed lump sum for going out as and by way of
consideration for transferring or releasing or assigning or relinquishing his
interest in the partnership assets to the continuing partners and if the
retirement takes this form and the deed in that behalf is executed, it will be
difficult to say that there would be no element of “transfer”
involved in the transaction. In our view, it will depend upon the manner in
which the retirement takes place. What usually happens when a partner retires
from a firm has been clearly stated in the following statement of law, which
occurs in Lindley on Partnership, 13th edition, at page 474:
“24.
Assignment of share, etc., by retiring partner.—When a partner retires or dies,
and he or his executors are paid what is due in respect of his share, it is
customary for him or them formally to assign and release his interest in the
partnership, and for the continuing or surviving partners to take upon
themselves the payment of the outstanding debts of the firm, and to indemnify
their late partner or his estate from all such debts, and it is useful for the
partnership agreement specifically so to provide.”
At page 475,
under the sub-heading “stamp on assignment by outgoing partner”, the
following statement of law occurs:
“An
assignment by a partner of his share and interest in the firm to his
co-partners, in consideration of the payment by them of what is due to him from
the firm, is regarded as a sale of property within the meaning of the Stamp
Acts; and consequently the deed of assignment, or the agreement for the
assignment, requires an ad valorem stamp. But if
the retiring partner, instead of assigning his interest, takes the amount due
to him from the firm, gives a receipt for the money, and acknowledges that he
has no more claims on his co-partners, they will practically obtain all they
want; but such a transaction, even if carried out by deed, could hardly be held
to amount to a sale; and no ad valorem stamp, it is apprehended, would
be payable.”
A couple of
things emerge clearly from the aforesaid passages. In the first place, a
retiring partner while going out and while receiving what is due to him in
respect of his share, may assign his interest by a deed or he may, instead of
assigning his interest, take the amount due to him from the firm and give a
receipt for the money and acknowledge that he has no more claim on his
co-partners. The former type of transactions will be regarded as sale or
release or assignment of his interest by a deed attracting stamp duty, while
the latter type of transaction would not. In other words, it is clear, the
retirement of a partner can take either of two forms, and apart from the
question of stamp duty, with which we are not concerned, the question whether
the transaction would amount to an assignment or release of his interest in
favour of the continuing partners or not would depend upon what particular mode
of retirement is employed and as indicated earlier, if instead of quantifying
his share by taking accounts on the footing of notional sale, parties agree to
pay a lump sum in consideration of the retiring partner assigning or
relinquishing his share or right in the partnership and its assets in favour of
the continuing partners, the transaction would amount to a transfer within the
meaning of section 2(47) of the Income-tax Act.’
Based on the
language of the Deed of Retirement, the Bombay High Court took the view that
since there was an assignment by the outgoing partner of his share in the
assets of the firm in favour of the continuing partners, there was a transfer
and the gains made on such transfer were exigible to tax.
In the context of
taxation, the Bombay High Court observed:
‘It may be
stated that the Gujarat decision in Mohanbhai
Pamabhai’s case [1973] 91 ITR 393 is the only
decision directly on the point at issue before us but the question is whether
the position of a retiring partner could be equated with that of a partner upon
the general dissolution for capital gains tax purposes? The equating of the two
done by the Supreme Court in Addanki
Narayanappa’s case, AIR 1966 SC 1300, was not
for capital gains tax purposes but for considering the question whether the
instrument executed on such occasion between the partners inter se required registration and could be admitted in evidence
for want of registration. For capital gains tax purposes the question assumes
significance in view of the fact that under section 47(ii) any distribution of
assets upon dissolution of a firm has been expressly excepted from the purview
of section 45 while the case of a retirement of a partner from a firm is not so
excepted and hence the question arises whether the retirement of a partner
stands on the same footing as that upon a dissolution of the firm. In our view,
a clear distinction exists between the two concepts, inasmuch as the
consequences flowing from each are entirely different. In the case of
retirement of a partner from the firm it is only that partner who goes out of
the firm and the remaining partners continue to carry on the business of the
partnership as a firm, while in the latter case the firm as such no more exists
and the dissolution is between all the partners of the firm. In the Indian
Partnership Act the two concepts are separately dealt with.’
This distinction between the dissolution and the retirement, made by
the High Court for taxing the receipt was overruled by the Supreme Court by
holding that the two are the same for the purposes of section 47(ii) of the
Act.
It was therefore
that the Bombay High Court first held that there was a transfer and later that
the receipt of consideration on transfer was not exempt from tax u/s 47(ii) of
the Act. The Supreme Court, however, overruled the Bombay High Court decision,
holding that retirement was also covered by dissolution referred to in section
47(ii), and that such retirement would therefore not be chargeable to capital
gains. It may also be noted that the Bombay High Court’s decision was rendered
prior to the Supreme Court decision in the case of Mohanbhai Pamabhai
(Supra).
Surprisingly, the
Delhi High Court, while deciding the case of Bishanlal Kanodia (Supra),
relied upon the decision of the Bombay High Court in Tribuhuvandas G.
Patel (Supra), overlooking the implications of the decisions of the
Supreme Court in the cases of Mohanbhai Pamabhai and Tribhuvandas
G. Patel wherein the ratio of the decision of the Bombay High
Court was rendered inapplicable. The Delhi High Court sought to distinguish
between dissolution and retirement, even though the Supreme Court had held that
the term ‘dissolution’ for the purpose of section 47(ii) included retirement up
to A.Y. 1987-88; the case before the Delhi High Court concerned itself with
A.Y. 1975-76.
Further, though the
decision of the Madras High Court in the case of the Legal Representatives of
N. Paliniappa Goundar (Supra) was relied upon by the assessee in the
case of Savitri Kadur (Supra), it was not considered by the
Bangalore bench of the Tribunal. The Madras High Court in that case, for A.Y.
1962-63, considering the provisions of section 12B of the 1922 Act, had dealt
with the decisions of the Gujarat High Court in the case of Mohanbhai
Pamabhai and of the Bombay High Court in the case of Tribhuvandas
G. Patel, which had not yet been decided by the Supreme Court. While
disagreeing with the view of the Bombay High Court, the Madras High Court
observed as under:
With respect, we
cannot see why a retirement of a partner from a firm should be treated as
having different kinds of attributes according to the mode of settlement of the
retiring partner’s accounts in the partnership. In our view, whether the
retiring partner receives a lump sum consideration or whether the amount is
paid to him after a general taking of accounts and after ascertainment of his
share in the net assets of the partnership as on the date of retirement, the
result, in terms of the legal character of the payment as well as the
consequences thereof, is precisely the same. For, as observed by the Gujarat
High Court in Mohanbhai‘s case when a partner retires from the firm and receives an amount
in respect of his share in the partnership, what he receives is his own share
in the partnership, and it is that which is worked out and realised. Whatever
he receives cannot be regarded as representing some kind of consideration
received by him as a result of transfer of assignment or extinguishment or
relinquishment of his share in favour of the other partners.
We hold that
even in a case where some kind of a lump sum is received by the retiring
partner, it must be regarded as referable only to the share of the retiring
partner. This being so, no relinquishment at all is involved. What he receives
is what he has already put in by way of his share capital or by way of his
exertions as a partner. In a true sense, therefore, whether it is a dissolution
or a retirement, and whether in the latter case the retirement is on the basis
of a general taking of accounts or on the basis of an ad hoc payment to the retiring partner, what the partner obtains
is nothing more and nothing less than his own share in the partnership. A
transaction of this kind is more fittingly described as a mutual release or a
mutual relinquishment. In the very case dealt by the Bombay High Court, the
particular amount paid by the remaining partners in favour of the retiring
partner was only a payment in consideration of which there was a mutual
release, a release by the retiring partner in favour of the remaining partners
and a release by the remaining partners in favour of the retiring partner. The
idea of mutual release is appropriate to a partnership, because a retired
partner will have no hold over the future profits of the firm and the partners
who remain in the partnership release the retired partner from all future
obligations towards the liabilities of the firm.
We, therefore,
unqualifiedly accept the decision of the Gujarat High Court as based on a
correct view of the law and the legal relations which result on the retirement
of a partner from the partnership. With respect, we do not subscribe to the distinction
sought to be drawn by the learned Judges of the Bombay High Court between an ad hoc payment to a retiring partner and a payment to him after
ascertaining his net share in the partnership.
The Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of CIT vs. L. Raghu
Kumar 141 ITR 674, also had an occasion to consider this issue for the
A.Y. 1971-72. In this case, the retiring partner received an amount in excess
of the balance lying to the credit of his capital account and his share of
profits. The Andhra Pradesh High Court considered the decisions of the Bombay
High Court in the case of Tribhuvandas G. Patel (Supra) and CIT
vs. H.R. Aslot 115 ITR 255, where the Bombay High Court had held that
whether there was a transfer or not would depend upon the terms of the retirement
deed – whether there is an assignment by the outgoing partner in favour of the
continuing partners, or whether the retiring partner merely receives an amount
for which he acknowledges receipt.
The Andhra Pradesh
High Court observed as under:
‘It is no doubt
true as submitted by the learned counsel for the revenue that the Bombay High
Court did not accept the principle in the Mohanbhai case, that there is no distinction between a case of a retirement
of the partner and dissolution of the partnership firm and that there can never
be a transfer of a capital asset in the case of a retirement of a partner as
there is no relinquishment of a capital asset or extinguishment of rights
therein. With great respect, we are unable to agree with the view of the Bombay
High Court. The rights of a partner are governed by the provisions of the
Partnership Act. Otherwise by a mere description, the nature of the transaction
can be altered. Further, the Gujarat High Court in Mohanbhai’s case (Supra) followed the
decision of the Supreme Court in Narayanappa
(Supra) which laid down the proposition of law
unequivocally.’
This decision of
the Andhra Pradesh High Court has been affirmed by the Supreme Court in CIT
vs. R. Lingmallu Raghukumar 247 ITR 801. Therefore, effectively, the
Supreme Court has approved of the approach taken by the Andhra Pradesh High
Court, to the effect that there can never be a transfer of a capital asset in
the case of retirement of a partner as there is no relinquishment of a capital
asset or extinguishment of rights therein, and that the nature of the
transaction cannot be altered by a mere description, but is governed by the
provisions of the Partnership Act. It is only logical that a transfer cannot
arise merely because a retiring partner is paid an amount in excess of his
capital, or because the retirement deed wording is different.
This fact of law
laid down by the Supreme Court and the overruling of the law laid down by the
Bombay High Court, has been recognised by the Bombay High Court in its later
decision in the case of Prashant S. Joshi (Supra), clearly and
succinctly, where the Bombay High Court observed:
‘The Gujarat
High Court held that there is, in such a situation, no transfer of interest in
the assets of the partnership within the meaning of section 2(47). When a
partner retires from a partnership, what the partner receives is his share in
the partnership which is worked out by taking accounts and this does not amount
to a consideration for the transfer of his interest to the continuing partners.
The rationale for this is explained as follows in the judgment of the Gujarat
High Court (in the Mohanbhai Pamabhai case):
“…What
the retiring partner is entitled to get is not merely a share in the
partnership assets; he has also to bear his share of the debts and liabilities
and it is only his share in the net partnership assets after satisfying the
debts and liabilities that he is entitled to get on retirement. The debts and
liabilities have to be deducted from the value of the partnership assets and it
is only in the surplus that the retiring partner is entitled to claim a share.
It is, therefore, not possible to predicate that a particular amount is
received by the retiring partner in respect of his share in a particular
partnership asset or that a particular amount represents consideration received
by the retiring partner for extinguishment of his interest in a particular
asset.”
14. The appeal
against the judgment of the Gujarat High Court was dismissed by a Bench of
three learned Judges of the Supreme Court in Addl.
CIT vs. Mohanbhai Pamabhai [1987] 165 ITR 166.
The Supreme Court relied upon its judgment in Sunil
Siddharthbhai vs. CIT [1985] 156 ITR 509. The
Supreme Court reiterated the same principle by relying upon the judgment in Addanki Narayanappa vs. Bhaskara Krishnappa AIR 1966 SC 1300. The Supreme Court held that what is envisaged on the retirement of
a partner is merely his right to realise his interest and to receive its value.
What is realised is the interest which the partner enjoys in the assets during
the subsistence of the partnership by virtue of his status as a partner and in
terms of the partnership agreement. Consequently, what the partner gets upon
dissolution or upon retirement is the realisation of a pre-existing right or
interest.
The Supreme
Court held that there was nothing strange in the law that a right or interest
should exist in praesenti but its realisation or
exercise should be postponed. The Supreme Court inter alia cited with
approval the judgment of the Gujarat High Court in Mohanbhai Pamabhai’s
case (Supra) and held that there is no transfer upon the retirement of a
partner upon the distribution of his share in the net assets of the firm. In CIT
vs. R. Lingmallu Raghukumar [2001] 247 ITR 801, the Supreme Court held,
while affirming the principle laid down in Mohanbhai Pamabhai
that when a partner retires from a partnership and the amount of his share in
the net partnership assets after deduction of liabilities and prior charges is
determined on taking accounts, there is no element of transfer of interest in
the partnership assets by the retired partner to the continuing partners.
15. At this
stage, it may be noted that in CIT vs.
Tribhuvandas G. Patel [1978] 115 ITR 95 (Bom.),
which was decided by a Division Bench of this Court, under a deed of
partnership, the assessee retired from the partnership firm and was inter alia paid an amount of Rs. 4,77,941 as his share in the
remaining assets of the firm. The Division Bench of this Court had held that
the transaction would have to be regarded as amounting to a transfer within the
meaning of section 2(47) inasmuch as the assessee had assigned, released and
relinquished his share in the partnership and its assets in favour of the
continuing partners. This part of the judgment was reversed in appeal by the
Supreme Court in Tribhuvandas G. Patel vs. CIT [1999] 236 ITR 515.
Following the
judgment of the Supreme Court in Sunil
Siddharthbhai’s case (Supra), the Supreme Court
held that even when a partner retires and some amount is paid to him towards
his share in the assets, it should be treated as falling under clause (ii) of
section 47. Therefore, the question was answered in favour of the assessee and
against the revenue. Section 47(ii) which held the field at the material time
provided that nothing contained in section 45 was applicable to certain
transactions specified therein and one of the transactions specified in clause
(ii) was distribution of the capital assets on a dissolution of a firm. Section
47(ii) was subsequently omitted by the Finance Act of 1987 with effect from 1st
April, 1988. Simultaneously, sub-section (4) of section 45 came to be inserted
by the same Finance Act. Sub-section (4) of section 45 provides that profits or
gains arising from the transfer of a capital asset by way of distribution of
capital assets on the dissolution of a firm or other association of persons or
body of individuals (not being a company or a co-operative society) or
otherwise, shall be chargeable to tax as the income of the firm, association or
body, of the previous year in which the said transfer takes place.
The fair market
value of the assets on the date of such transfer shall be deemed to be the full
value of the consideration received or accruing as a result of the transfer for
the purpose of section 48. Ex facie sub-section
(4) of section 45 deals with a situation where there is a transfer of a capital
asset by way of a distribution of capital assets on the dissolution of a firm
or otherwise. Evidently, on the admitted position before the Court, there is no
transfer of a capital asset by way of a distribution of the capital assets on a
dissolution of the firm or otherwise in the facts of this case. What is to be
noted is that even in a situation where sub-section (4) of section 45 applies,
profits or gains arising from the transfer are chargeable to tax as income of
the firm.’
The Bombay High
Court in Prashant Joshi’s case (Supra) also considered the fact
that section 45(4) was brought in simultaneously with the deletion of section
47(ii), providing for taxation in the hands of the firm, in a situation of
transfer of a capital asset on distribution of capital assets on the
dissolution of a firm or otherwise. Clearly, therefore, the intention was to
tax only the firm and that too only in a situation where there was a
distribution of capital assets of a firm on dissolution or otherwise, which
situation would include retirement of a partner as held by the Bombay High
Court in the case of CIT vs. A.N. Naik Associates 265 ITR 346.
This understanding of the law has clearly been brought out by the Bombay High
Court in Hemlata Shetty’s case (Supra), where the Bombay High
Court has observed that amount received by a partner on his retirement from the
partnership firm is not subject to tax in the retiring partners’ hands in view
of section 45(4), and the liability, if any, for tax is on the partnership
firm.
Had the intention
been to also tax a partner on his retirement on the excess amount received over
and above his capital balance in the books of the firm, an amendment would have
been made to cover such a situation involving the receipt of capital asset by a
partner on distribution by the firm simultaneously with the deletion of section
47(ii).
The Bombay High
Court’s decision in the case of Riyaz A. Shaikh (Supra) is a
decision rendered in the context of A.Y. 2002-03, i.e., post-amendment. It was
not a case of a writ petition filed against any reassessment but was an appeal
from the decision of the Tribunal. The Court in that case has considered all
the relevant decisions – the Bombay High Court’s decisions in the cases of Prashant
S. Joshi, N.A. Mody and Tribhuvandas G. Patel, besides
the Supreme Court decisions in the cases of Tribhuvandas G. Patel
and R. Lingamallu Rajkumar – while arriving at the view that the
amounts received on retirement by a partner are not liable to capital gains
tax.
Similarly, Hemlata
Shetty’s case pertained to the post-amendment period and the Court
therein has considered the earlier decisions of the Bombay High Court in the Prashant
S. Joshi and Riyaz A. Sheikh cases and has also
considered the impact of section 45(4). It is indeed baffling that the Bombay
High Court decision delivered on 5th March, 2019 and the earlier
decision of the Tribunal in the same case have not been considered by the
Bangalore bench of the Tribunal in Savitri Kadur’s case, decided
on 3rd May, 2019, which chose to follow the decision of Sudhakar
M. Shetty (Supra), where the matter was still pending before the Bombay
High Court, rather than a decision of the Bombay High Court in his wife’s case
on identical facts (retirement from the same partnership firm) for the
immediately preceding assessment year, where the matter had already been
decided on 5th March, 2019. We are sure that the decision of the
Tribunal could have been different if the development had been in its
knowledge.
One may note that
the Legislature, realising that the receipt in question was not taxable under
the present regime of the Income-tax Act, 1961, had introduced a specific
provision for taxing such receipt in the hands of the partner under the
proposed Direct Tax Code which has yet to see the light of the day.
The better view of
the matter therefore is that retirement of a partner from a partnership firm is
not subject to capital gains tax, irrespective of the mode of retirement of the
partner, as rightly held by the Bombay High Court in various decisions, and the
Mumbai bench of the Tribunal in the cases of Hemlata Shetty and James
P. D’Silva (Supra). It is rather unfortunate that this issue has been
continuing to torture assessees for the last so many decades, even after
several Supreme Court judgments. One hopes that this matter will finally be
laid to rest either through a clarification by the CBDT or by a decision of the
Supreme Court.
The beauty of doing nothing is that you can do it
perfectly. Only when you do something is it almost impossible to do it without
mistakes. Therefore people who are contributing nothing to society, except
their constant criticisms, can feel both intellectually and morally superior.
—
Thomas Sowell
