Bombay High Court Allows Assessee in Income Tax Reference Under Section 256(1) of Income Tax Act, 1961 — Profits on Sale of Machinery Not Taxable Under Section 41(2) as Depreciation Was Claimed by Dissolved Firm, Not by Assessee.

High Court: Bombay High Court In Favour of Accused
  • 7
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The case involves a reference under Section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai, for the opinion of the Bombay High Court. The assessment year is 1980-81. The assessee, P.H. Hamid, was a partner of the firm M/s. Publicity Printers along with his wife. The firm was dissolved by a dissolution deed dated 26.12.1978 with effect from 15.12.1978. On dissolution, certain assets of the firm, including three machines, were allotted to the assessee. The firm had claimed depreciation on these machines prior to dissolution. The assessee sold the three machines immediately after dissolution to three different parties for a total consideration. The Income Tax Officer treated the profits on sale as taxable under Section 41(2) of the Act, holding that since the assessee had claimed depreciation (though actually claimed by the firm), he was liable. The Tribunal upheld this. The High Court framed two questions: (1) whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee had claimed depreciation and thus liable under Section 41(2); (2) whether the assessee is liable even though depreciation was claimed by the firm and not by the assessee. The Court analyzed Section 41(2) and noted that it applies only to the person who claimed the depreciation. Since the assessee did not claim depreciation, the profits on sale are not taxable under Section 41(2). The Court answered both questions in the negative, in favor of the assessee.

Headnote

A) Income Tax - Section 41(2) - Depreciation - Succession - The assessee, a partner of a dissolved firm, sold machinery allotted to him on dissolution. The firm had claimed depreciation on the machinery. The Tribunal held the assessee liable under Section 41(2) for profits on sale. The High Court held that Section 41(2) applies only to the person who claimed depreciation, not to a successor who did not claim depreciation. The assessee did not claim depreciation, so the profits are not taxable under Section 41(2). (Paras 1-3)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the assessee is liable to tax on profits under Section 41(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on sale of machinery which was allotted to him on dissolution of a partnership firm, where depreciation was claimed by the firm and not by the assessee

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

Both questions answered in the negative, in favor of the assessee. The assessee is not liable to tax on profits under Section 41(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Law Points

  • Section 41(2) of Income Tax Act
  • 1961 applies only to the person who claimed depreciation
  • not to a successor who did not claim depreciation
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2005 LawText (BOM) (07) 137

Income Tax Reference No.110 of 1990

2005-07-21

V.C. Daga, A.S. Aguiar

B.V. Jhaveri i/b J.I. Patel for Applicant, A.N. Kotangle, Sr. Counsel with D.A. Dubey i/b K.C. Sidhwa for Respondent

P.H. Hamid

Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City-IV

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Income Tax Reference under Section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961

Remedy Sought

Opinion of the High Court on questions of law referred by the Tribunal

Filing Reason

Dispute over taxability of profits on sale of machinery under Section 41(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961

Previous Decisions

The Income Tax Officer and the Tribunal held the assessee liable under Section 41(2).

Issues

Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee had claimed depreciation and is liable to tax on profits under Section 41(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961? Whether the assessee is liable to tax on profits under Section 41(2) even though depreciation was claimed by the partnership firm and not by the assessee?

Submissions/Arguments

The assessee argued that he did not claim depreciation, so Section 41(2) does not apply. The Revenue argued that the assessee is liable as the successor to the firm's assets.

Ratio Decidendi

Section 41(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 applies only to the person who claimed the depreciation. Since the assessee did not claim depreciation, the profits on sale of machinery are not taxable under Section 41(2).

Judgment Excerpts

By this reference under Section 256 (1) of Income-Tax Act, 1961 (the I.T.Act), the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal for short), Mumbai, has referred the following questions for the opinion of this Court. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee had claimed depreciation on the machinery and, therefore, the assessee is liable to tax on profits of Rs.2,13,705/- u/s. 41(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961?

Procedural History

The Income Tax Officer assessed the assessee under Section 41(2). The assessee appealed to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) who upheld the assessment. The assessee then appealed to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, which also upheld the assessment. The Tribunal then referred the questions of law to the High Court under Section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Acts & Sections

  • Income Tax Act, 1961: 41(2), 256(1)
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Allows Assessee in Income Tax Reference Under Section 256(1) of Income Tax Act, 1961 — Profits on Sale of Machinery Not Taxable Under Section 41(2) as Depreciation Was Claimed by Dissolved Firm, Not by Assessee.
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Allows Appeal in Cheque Dishonour Case, Sets Aside Acquittal on Grounds of Improper Appreciation of Evidence and Reverses Finding of Duress. The Court held that the defence of cheque issued under force was not proved and the presump...