Supreme Court of India
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ANDHRA PRADESHversusB. POSETTY AND CO.
- Citation
- 1996 INSC 1281
- Decided
- 5 November 1996
- Disposal
- Dismissed
- Bench
- A M AHMADI
Holding
A sub‑partnership is a distinct legal entity and does not fall within Section 14 of the Abkari Act; therefore, it is entitled to registration under the Income Tax Act.
Summary
The main partnership, Mis. Nizamabad Group Sendhi Contractors, was a licensed lessee under the Abkari Act and was registered under the Income Tax Act. One of its partners, B. Posetty, could not meet his capital contribution, so he and nine others formed a sub‑partnership, "B. Posetty and Co.," to finance his share. The Income Tax Officer refused registration of the sub‑partnership, alleging that it contravened Section 14 of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Abkari Act, which prohibits a lessee from declaring a partner without a licence. The Revenue appealed, contending that the sub‑partnership was effectively a partner in the main firm and thus fell within the prohibition. The Supreme Court held that a sub‑partnership is a distinct legal entity, does not make its members partners of the main firm, and therefore Section 14 does not apply; consequently, the sub‑partnership is entitled to registration. The Court dismissed the Revenue’s appeal.
Issues considered
- Whether the sub‑partnership contravenes Section 14 of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Abkari Act, thereby rendering it void and ineligible for registration under the Income Tax Act.
- Whether a sub‑partnership is a distinct legal entity separate from the main partnership for the purposes of the Income Tax Act and the Abkari Act.
Legislation cited
- Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Abkari Acts. 14
- Income Tax Act, 1961s. 184, s. 185
Subjects
sub‑partnershipregistrationIncome Tax ActAbkari ActSection 14partnership lawtax registrationlesseelicensing
Judgment
A COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ANDHRA PRADESH
v.
B. POSETTY AND CO.
NOVEMBER 5, 1996
B [A.M. AHMADI, CJ. K.S. PARIPOORNAN AND
SUJATA V.MANOHAR,JJ.)
Income Tax Act, 1961-Section 184-Registration of firm-Sub
Partnership-Entitlement to registration-Held, main firm and sub-
partnership are distinct and different entities-Hence registration cannot
C be refased.
Andhra Pradesh (Telengana Area) Abkari Act-Section 14-
Registration ofSub-Partnershjp under the Income Tax Act-Whether could
be denied on the ground that sub-partnership contravened Section 14-
D Held, No, since either the sub-partnership or any partner thereof become
partner in the main firm.
M/s. N. was a firm which was granted registration under the
Income Tax Act. Respondent found it difficult to contribute the
required capital for the share in the firm, a new sub-partnership was
E formed to provide requisite finance to the main firm, and it filed an
application for registration for the assessment year 1966-67. The
Income Tax Officer refused registration to sub-partnership firm on
!he ground that it contravened the provisions of Section 14 of the
Abkari Act and so void and unenforceable. It was confirmed in appeal.
On appeal the Tribunal and the High Court allowed registration of
F the sub-partnership firm.
In this appeal preferred by the Revenue, the sole question that
arose for consideration was whether the sub-partnership contravened
Section 14 of the Abkari Act.
G
Dismissing the appeal, this Court
HELD : l. The sub-partnership is a distinct and different firm.
It is one recognised by law and it is not a partnership with the main
firm. It will not have the effect of making the partner in the sub-
H partnership, partner of the main firm. Hence it cannot be said that
452
COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX v. B. POSETTY AND CO. 453
either the sub-partnership or any of its partner became a partner of A
the main firm. The inhibition contained in Section 14 of the Abkari
1
Act will apply only in a case where the lessee declares any person as
its partner. Here the lessee had not declared either the sub partnership
or any other person as its partner. [462 D-F]
2. The sub partnership financed one of its partner to make a B
capital investment in the main firm. Such an arrangement of
agreement between persons who formed a distinct and different firm
is valid in law and to such a situation Section 14 of the Abkari Act is
not attracted, nor is there any basis to hold that there was any
contravention of the provisions of the said Act. Registration cannot
be refused to the sub partnership on the ground that one of the C
partners of the main firm had agreed to show the profit received by
him from the main firm with stranger or strangers. It does not affect
main firm or its partners in any way. Section 14 of the Abkari Act has
no application to such a situation. [462 G,H]
Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, v. Degaon Ganj Reddy G. D
Ramakrishna and Co. and others, (1995) 214 ITR 650 and Murlidhar
Himattsingka v. CIT, (62) !TR 323, relied on.
Bihari/al v. CIT, (217) ITR 746, distinguished.
Addi. Income Tax Commissioner, Hyd. v. D.G.G. Ramakrishna and E
Co., 1 (1977) TLR 244=111 ITR 93, referred to.
S.T. Desai: Law of Partnership in India (6" Edn) p. 152, referred
to.
F
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1209 of
1978.
From the Judgment and Order dated 22.8.77 of the Andhra Pradesh
High Court in C.R. No. 45 of 1975.
G
J. Ramamurthy and S.N. Terdol for the Appellant.
V.A. Bobde for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by H
454 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [I 996] SUPP. 8 S.C.R.
A PARIPOORNAN, J. 1. The Revenue has tiled this appeal against
the judgment of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh dated 22.8.1977 rendered
in Case Referred No.45 of 1975. The High Court granted a certificate
under Section 261 of the Income Tax Act to appeal to this Court, in S.C.L.
Petition No. 57 of 1978. The assessee is the respondent in this appeal.
B Since the respondent (assessee) was not represented, we requested
Sri V.A. Bobde (senior counsel) to assist us. We heard counsel for the
Revenue Sri. J. Ramamurthy and Sri. V.A. Bobde.
2. The short question involved in this Appeal is:-
c Whether the respondent-assessee firm is entitled to registration under
Income Tax Act for the year 1966-67? The Income Tali Officer by his
order passed under Section 185 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961, dated
28.12.1970, held that the respondent-assessee-sub-partnership-
contravenes the provisions of Section 14 of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana
D Area) Abkari Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Abkari Act') and so, the
sub-partnership should be considered as void and illegal. Section 14 of the
Act is to the following effect:-
"No lessee shall, except with the permission of Government;
declare any person to be his partner; and such partner shall
E not be competent to act as such until he has obtained a license
to that effect from the Collector or any other competent
officer."
Registration was refused. The said order was confirmed in appeal by the
Appellate Assistant Commissioner by order dated 28.2.1972. In further
F appeal, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal) in LT.A. No.210
(Hyd)/1972-73 by order dated 31.12.1973, held that the firm (sub-
partnership) is valid and entitled to registration. In rendering the said
order, the Tribunal noticed that another Bench of the Tribunal in LT.A.
No. I 028 (Hyd) of 1969-70 and connected appeals had by an earlier order
G dated 30.6. 1972, held that a sub-partnership on identical lines was not hit
by section 14 of the Abkari Act. Concurring with the said view, the Tribunal
further held that the business of sub-partnership was not the same as that
of the main partnership and all the insignia of a valid partnership are
present in this case and so, "it is valid and entitled to registration. It is
thereafter, at the instance of the Revenue, the Appellate Tribunal referred
H the following question of law for the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High
COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX v. B. POSETTY AND CO. [PARIPOORNAN, J.]455
•
Court. A
"Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case,
the subpartnership is entitled to the benefits of registration
under the Income-Tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 1966-
67?"
B
By the time the said reference came up for final hearing before the High
Court, the reference made by the Tribunal of an identical question in the
connected cases arising from LT.A. No. I 028(Hyd) of 1969-70 was heard
and decided by the High Court, holding that the sub-partnership in the
said case, is valid and entitled to registration, vide judgment in Additional
Income Tax Commissioner Hyderabad v. D.G.G. Ramakrishan and Co., I C
(1977) TLR 244~ 111 !TR 93. When the instant reference came up before
the High Court, the earlier decision on the identical matter was noticed
and the High Court answered the question in the affirmative and in favour
of the assessee vide judgment dated 22.8.1977. It is thereafter, the Revenue
moved the High Court in SCL Petition NO. 57/1978 under section 26! of D
the Income-tax Act and having obtaine~ a certificate to appeal to this
Court vide order dated 10.3.1978, has filed the above appeal.
4. At this stage, one fact deserves to be noticed. The decision of the
Andhra Pradesh High Court rendered in Additional Income Tax
Commissioner, Hyderabad v. D.G.G. Ramakishan and Co., I (1977) !LR E
244=1l1 !TR 93 came up in appeal before this Court, in Additional
Commissioner of Income Tax v. Degaon Ganga Reddy G. Ramakrishna
and Co. and others, (l 995) 214 !TR 650, and a Bench of this Court affirmed
the said decision. It was noticed that this Court had in Muralidhar
Himatsingka v. CIT, 62 !TR 323 held that a valid sub-partnership can be
entered into by a partner of the main firm with some strangers to share the F
income or loss receivable by him from the main partnership and such sub-
partnership is entitled to registration and then proceeded to state thus at
214 !TR 650 pages 653 to 655:-
"The High Court then proceeded to consider the next question, G
namely, whether a partner of the main firm who deals in
liquor .... or any other prohibited article which requires a
specific permission of the State Government... can validly
enter into a sub-partnership with strangers in respect of his
share in the main partnership. This question arises because
of the prohibition contained in section 14 of the Abkari Act H
456 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 8 S.C.R.
A against canying on business in liquor without a license granted
for the purpose. The High Court rightly pointed out that the
partners of the sub-partnership would not become partners
of the main partnership-firm and this position would not be
altered in any manner even if the business of the main firm
were to deal in liquor or any other prohibited article since
B the pa1tners of the sub-partnership would be entitled only to
share the profits and losses, as the case may be, that accrue
or fall to the share of the partner in the main firm.
Accordingly, the members of the sub-partnership do not
become partners of the main firm, the two being different
and distinct entities for the purpose of the Income-Tax Act.
c The High Court, then proceeded to state thus (at page 105):
"All the decisions relied upon by the Revenues are applicable
only if it is found as a fact that the sub-partnership had carried
on the business of liquor, tobacco, opium or any other
prohibited article without the requisite permission of the State
D Government or the Collector, as the case may be ... The
pertinent question that arises in the present case is whether
the sub-partnership has intended to do and in fact did business
in liquor in th;. accounting year. If the subpartership also had
indulged in the business ofliquor without the requisite license
in the name of the sub-partnership or in the names of all the
E partners of the sub-partnership the sub-partnership, on the
application of the principles referred to above, must be held
to be void ab initio and non est as it intended to do business
in liquor without the requisite license. If, on the other hand,
the business of the sub-partnership is not the sale of liquor or
F dealing in liquor or doing anything in connection with the
purchase and sale of liquor in any manner, it cannot be said
that those sub-partnerships are illegal and void and non est... "
After correctly stating the legal position, the High Court
referred to the contents of the deed of sub-partnership and
G the finding of the Tribunal that the assessee sub-partnership
cannot be said to have not carried on any business; that the
sub-partnership had financed and ov.ned the capital invested
by one of its partners in the main firm; and that the sub-
partnership had been formed mainly to finance the business
H of one of the partners of the main firm doing abkari business
COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX y. B. POSETTY AND CO. [PARIPOORNAN. J.]457
and share the profits and losses accruing to or received by A
him from the main firm. The High Court also observed that
the sub-partnership confined its business to only sharing the
profits earned by one of the partners of the main partnership
doing abkari business in lieu of their capital invested for the
share of that partner and, therefore, it cannot be said that
such a sub-partnership is prohibited in law ... " B
" ... there can be no doubt that the sub-partnership formed by
individual partners of the main partnership which were lessees,
with some others, merely to finance the business of a partner
of the main firm doing abkari business and share the profits
and losses accrued to or received by him from the main firm, C
were not in violation of Section 14 of the Abkari Act. For
this reason, there is no basis to hold that the sub-partnership
in violation of section 14 of the Abkari Act and, therefore,
illegal. The Tribunal was right in holding that in the facts
and circumstances of the case, the assessee-sub-partnerships
being found to be genuine were entitled to be registered under D
the Income-Tax Act."
In the riormal circumstances, the aforesaid decision of this Court reported
in (1995) 214 ITR 650, should govern the decision in this case also. But,
when the instant appeal came up for hearing before a Bench of two-Judges, E
after referring to the decision in Bihari Lal v. CIT (217) !TR 746 it was
observed:-
" .......... As the profits of the business to be shared by the
sub-partners were the profits of the main business, namely,
abkari business, Section 14 of the Abkari Act squarely got. F
attracted and made even the sub-partnership for sharing
at least a part of the main partnership profits illegal as
Section 14 of the Abkari Act was admittedly not complied
with."
G
and so, referred the matter for appropriate decision by a larger Bench of
three-Judges (see AIR (1996) SC 1091-Income Tax·Commissioner v. B.
Posetty). This is how the matter has come up before this Bench. A few
facts to decide the question of law involved in this appeal may be stated. A
partnership by name Mis. Nizamabad Group Sendhi Contractors, was
formed evidenced by a Partnership Deed dated 15.10.1962, consisting of H
458 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996] SUPP. 8 S.C.R.
A 17 partners. On 27th of August, 1963, Sri Ganga Goud, one of the partners
in the said firm, and 11 others executed a Partnership Deed to the effect
that Sri Ganga Goud after becoming a partner in the Nizamabad Group
Sendhi Contractors, the main partnership, found it difficult to contribute
the required capital towards his share and, therefore, the other 11 partners
of the sub-paitnership agreed to provide the finance on their being taken
B as partners in respect of Ganga Goud's 10 per cent share in the main
pa1tnership. The registration of the said sub-partnership was refused by
the Income Tax Officer. It is the case of the said sub-partnership which
finally reached this Court in the decision rendered in Additional
Commissioner of Income Tax v. Degaon Ganga Reddy G. Ramakrishna
and Co. and others, (1995) 214 ITR 650. Similarly, in this case, Sri B.
C Posetty had 11 percent share in the Nizamabad Group Sendhi Contractors.
He found it difficult to contribute the required capital for the said share in
the main firm. So, B. Posetty along with 9 others formed a sub-partnership
as "B. Posetty and Company'', on condition that they would provide the
requisite finance on allotting certain share to them out of Sri B. Posetty's
income in the main firm. The main partnership, Mis. Nizamabad Group
D Sendhi Contractors, is a registered firm under the Income-Tax Act. They
are lessees who were the highest bidders in the auction held by the Excise
authorities. The sub-partnership "B. Posetty and Company" is evidenced
by Deed dated 20.1.1965 which specified the shares of each partner. This
firm filed the application for regisiration for the assessment year J966-67.
On 30.9.1963, it returned an income, admitting 11 per cent share income
E of Sri B. Posetty in the firm Nazamabad Group Sendhi Contractors. The
Income Tax Officer refused registration to the sub-partnership on the
ground that the sub-partnership contravened the provisions of Section 14
of the Abkari Act, and so, void and unenforceable. It was affirmed in
appeal. But, the Tribunal as well as the High Court granted registration.
F 6. The sole question that arises for consideration in this appeal is,
whether the sub-partnership contravened Section 14 of the Abkari Act?
7. Section 14 of che said Act runs thus:
G "No lessee shall, except with the permission of Government,
declare any person to be his partner; and such partner shall
not be competent to act as such until he has obtained a license
to that effect from the Collector or any other competent
officer."
H (emphasis supplied)
COMMNR. OF INCO~E TAX v. B. POSETIY AND CO. [PARIPOORNAN, l.]459
It will be appropriate to quote the relevant provisions of the Income- A
Tax Act, 1961, dealing with registration as they existed during t:1e relevant
period:-
Section 184
"(l) An application for registration of a fim1 for the purposes B
of this Act may be made to the Assessing Officer on behalf
of any firm if-
(i) the partnership is evidenced by an instrument; and
(ii) the individual shares of the partners are specified in that C
instrument.
(2) Such application may, subject to the provisions of this
section, be made either during the existence of the firm or
after its dissolution." D
xxx xxx xxx
"(5) The application shall be accompanied by the original
instrument evidencing the partnership, together with a copy
thereof:" E
(6) The application shall be made in the prescribed form and
shall contain the prescribed· particulars.
(7) Where registration is granted or is deemed to have been F
granted to any firm for any assessment year, it shall have
effect for every subsequent assessment year:
Provided that-
(i) there is no change in the constitution of the firm or the G
shares of the partners as evidenced by the instrument or'
partnership on the basis of which the registration was granted;
and
(ii) the firm furnishes, before the expiry of the time allowed H
460 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 8 S.C.R.
A under sub-section (1) of section 139 for furnishing the return
of income for such subsequent assessment year, a declaration
to that effect, in the prescribed form and verified in the
prescribed manner, so, however, that where
the Assessing Officer is satisfied that the firm was
prevented by sufficient cause from furnishing the
B declaration within the time so allowed, he may allow the
firm to furnish the declaration at any time before the
assessment is 1nade."
"Procedure on receipt of application
c 185. (I) On receipt of an application for the registration ofa
firm, the Assessing Officer shall inquire into the genuineness
of the firm and its constitution as specified in the instrument
of partnership, and-
(a) if he is satisfied that there is or was during the previous
D year in existence a genuine firm with the constitution so
specified, he shall pass an order in writing registering the
firm for the assessment year;
(b) ifhe is not so satisfied, he shall pass an order in writing
refusing to register the firm."
E
We should remember that it is the main partnership, i.e., Nizamabad Group
Sendhi Contractors who were lessees being the highest bidders in the auction
held by the Excise authorities for the relevant year. The said partnership
was registered ~y the Income Tax Department under the Income-Tax Act.
F In the instant case, the Tribunal found the business of the sub-partnership
is not the same as that of the main partnership and all the insignia of a
valid partnership are present in the case and so, it is valid and entitled to
registration. The said findings were not questioned before High Court
by framing an appropriate question in that regard. In the instant case,
G the High Court followed its earlier decision reported in 111 !TR 93
wherein after noticing section 14 of the Abkari Act, the High Court held
thus:
"All the decisions relied upon by the Revenue are applicable
only ifit is found as a fact that the sub-partnership had carried
H on the business of liquor, tobacco, opium or any other
COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX v. B. POSETTY AND CO. [PARIPOORNAN. J.1461
prohibited article without the requisite permission of the State A
Government or the Collector, as the case may be ... The
pertinent question that arises in the present case is whether
the sub-partnership has intended to do and in fact did business
in liquor in the accounting year. If the sub-partnership also
had indulged in the business of liquor without the requisite
license in the name of the sub-partnership or in the names of B
all the partners of the sub-partnership, the sub-partnership,
on the application of the principles referred to above, must
be held to be void ab initio and non est as it intended to do
business in liquor without the requisite license. If, on the
other hand, the business of the sub-partnership is not the sale
ofliquor or dealing in liquor or doing anything in connection C
with the purchase and sale of liquor in any manner, it cannot
be said that those sub-partnerships are illegal and void and
non est: ........... "
The High Court further held that the sub-partnership had financed and D
owned the capital invested by one of its partners in the main firm and the
sub-partnership confined its business to only sharing the profits earned by
one of the partners of the main partnership doing abkari business in lieu of
their capital invested for the share of that partner and such a sub-partnership
is not prohibited by law.
E
8. Dealing with sub-partnership and its validity, S.T. Desai on
The Law of Partnership in India (6th Edn.) at page 152, states the law,
thus:
"Sub-partnership may arise when as a result of an agreement F
between a partner in a firm and a stranger the latter becomes
jointly interested with that partner so far as his share in the
firm is concerned. Such mutual interests may amount to a
partnership, but it is not a partnership in the main firm, but
what is called a sub-partnership. Such an agreement will not G
have the effect of making the stranger a partner of the main
firm. He will have no demand against that firm, nor will he
be entitled to ask for accounts of its business so long as it
continues to trade. It would hardly be questioned that a sub-
partner is not liable to the creditors of the main firm for any
of its debts. H
462 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 8 S.C.R.
A Sub-partnerships have been recognised in India both before
and after the present Act came into force. In Murlidhar v.
Income Tax Commissioner, AIR (1967) SC 383=62 !TR 323
the Supreme Court quoted with approval the following
statement of the law from Lindley on Partnership: "A sub-
paitnership is, as it were, a partnership within a partnership;
B it presupposes the existence of a partnership to which it is
itself subordinate. An agreement to share profits only
constitutes partnership between the parties to the agreement.
If, therefore, several persons are partners and one of them
agrees to share the profits derived by him with a stranger, this
agreement does not make the stranger a partner in the original
c firm. The result of such an agreement is to constitute what is
called a sub-partnership, that is to say, it makes the parties to
it partners inter se; but it in no way affects the other members
of the principal firm. "
(emphasis supplied)
D
In this case, the lessee is Nizamabad Group Sendhi Contractors (main
firm). The sub-partnership is a distinct and different firm. It is one
recognised by law and it is n'ot partnership with the main firm. It will not
have the effect of making the partners in the sub-partnership, partners of
E the main firm. In other words, the main firm, the lessees and the sub-
partnership are distinct and different. In the light of the above legal
position, it cannot be said that either the sub-partnership in the instant
case, or any of its partners as a partner, became a partner of the main firm,
Nizamabad Group Sendhi Contractors. The inhibition contained in Section
14 of the Abkari Act will apply only in a case where the lessee declares
F any person as its partner. Here, the lessees, Mis. Nizamabad Group Sendhi
Contractors, had not declared either the sub-partnership or any other person,
as its partner. In such circumstances, the inhibition contained in Section
14 of the Abkari Act cannot apply. It is true that Sri Posetty and 10 others
formed the sub-partnership, "B. Posetty and Co."-for a legitimate business
G purpose, to provide the requisite finance, on condition of allotment of
certain shares to them out of Mr. Posetty's share in the main firm. The
sub-partnership financed one of its partners to make a capital investment
in the main firm. Such an arrangement or agreement between persons
who formed a distinct and different firm, is valid in law and to such
situation Section 14 of the Abkari Act is not attracted; nor is there any
H basis to hold that there was any contravention of the provisions of the said
COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX v. B. POSETTY AND CO. [PARJPOORNAN, J.]463
Act. Law recognises formation of sub-partnership. The main partnership A
and the sub-partriership are, for the purpose of law, distinct and different
entities. Registration cannot be refused to the sub-partnership on the ground
that one of the partners of the main firm had agreed to share the profits
received by him from the firm, with a stranger or strangers (members of
the sub-partnership) since the agreement does not make the stranger or
strangers or the sub-partnership firm, a partner in the original firm and B
such an arrangement or agreement does not affect either the main firm or
its other members, in any way. Section 14 of the Abkari Act has no
application to such a situation. We are of the view that on the facts similar
to one in the instant case, the earlier decision of this Court in Additional
Commissioner of Income Tax v. Degaon Ganga Reddy G. Ramakrishna
and Co. and Others, (214) ITR 650, has properly considered the entire C
matter and a reconsideration of the same is not called for. We should state
that this Court in Bihari Lal 's case 217 ITR 746 was dealing entirely with
a different situation wherein clasue VI of the General License conditions
prescribed by Madhya Pradesh Excise Rules, 1960, quoted at p. 750 of the
report, was of very wide import and interdicted transfer or sub-lease of
the license or formation of partnership of the license obtained by an D
individual in any manner or form. Such a situation is not present herein.
The said decision is clearly distinguishable. In our view, the nigh Court
was justified in law in answering the question referred to it, in the affirmative
and in favour of the assessee. This appeal is without merit and is dismissed.
There shall be no order as to costs.
E
S.V.K.I. Appeal dismissed.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "sub‑partnership"Sign in to search