Skip to main content

Remuneration from partnership not ‘Gross Receipt’ for purpose of Audit u/s 44AB of IT Act

Cause Title : Perizad Zorabian Irani V/s. Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax (Central)-1 Mumbai & Ors, Writ Petition No.1333 Of 2021, Bombay High Court

Date of Judgment/Order : 9th March 2022

Corum : K.R. Shriram & N.J. Jamadar, JJ

Citied: 

Background

Petitioner is an individual deriving her income under the heads salary, income from house property, business / profession and income from other sources. Petitioner is an Actor by profession. Petitioner also is a partner in two partnership firms namely M/s Zorabian Sales and Marketing and M/s Zorabian Foods.

Petitioner filed her return of income for A.Y.-2017-2018 under Section 139(1) of the Act declaring total income of Rs.1,75,88,360/-. Out of this total income, a sum of Rs.1,09,65,411/- was declared under the heads of business and profession. Out of Rs.1,09,65,411/-, petitioner derived a sum of Rs.8,45,220 as net income from petitioner’s acting profession and Rs.1,01,20,191/- as remuneration received as working partner from the firm M/s Zorabian Sales and Marketing.

The Income tax dept. declared the return of income filed by petitioner as invalid due to non auditing of accounts as required under Section 44AB of the Act. Revision application filed by the Petitioner was rejected.

In the appeal before the High Court, the Petitioner  argued that provisions of Section 44AB are not applicable to the facts of the present case because: (a) the business is carried on by the partnership firm and not the assessee, (b) becoming the partner of partnership cannot be construed as carrying on business, (c) partners’ remuneration cannot be construed as total sales turn over or gross receipts in business, (d) partners’ remuneration does not arise out of carrying on profession, (e) partners’ remuneration cannot be construed as gross receipts from profession and (f) Section 44AB is not applicable where assessee is carrying on a profession as well as business simultaneously in different field.


Judgment

Referring to the judgment of the the judgment of Madras High Court in Anandkumar Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, the Bombay High Court held that the provision applicable to petitioner is clause (b) of Section 44AB which provides, every person carrying on profession shall, if his gross receipts in profession exceed fifty lakh rupees in any previous year, get his accounts of such previous year audited by an accountant before the specified date and furnish by that date the report of such audit in the prescribed form duly signed and verified by such accountant and setting forth such particulars as may be prescribed. Profession is defined under Section 2(36) of the Act as under: “Profession includes vocation”. The income earned by petitioner as remuneration received as working partner or partners’ remuneration, cannot be held as carrying on profession as well as business simultaneously in different field. That is because the provisions of Section 44AB(a) which says “every person carrying on business shall, if his total sales, turnover or gross receipts, as the case may be, in business exceed or exceeds one crore rupees in any previous year” and clause (b) of Section 44AB which says “every person carrying on profession shall, if his gross receipts in profession exceed fifty lakh rupees in any previous year”, are mututally exclusive, i.e., the former dealing with the assessee carrying on business and later dealing with the profession. 

None of the clauses under Section 44AB envisages the situation where the assessee is carrying on both the profession as well as business.

The High Court also observed that in Anandkumar (supra), the Assessing Officer had correctly opined that Section 44AD is available only for an eligible assessee engaged in an eligible business and that the assessee was not carrying on business independently but only as partner in the firm. The Assessing Officer further held that the assessee did not have any turnover and receipts on account of remuneration and interest from the firms cannot be construed as gross receipts mentioned in Section 44AD of the Act. The submissions thereon of the Revenue are totally contrary to the submissions made in the case at hand where, the Revenue is wanting to add the income received as remuneration from the partnership firm as professional income. In fact, in the case at hand, petitioner’s case is the same that petitioner’s remuneration from the partnership cannot be treated as gross receipt in profession and the petitioner’s stand that she was not required to get her accounts audited under Section 44AB, is correct. 

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Appellate authorities under Special Statutes cannot be asked to condone delay

Madras High Court in R.Gowrishankar vs. The Commissioner of Service Tax has held that Appellate authorities cannot be asked to condone the delay, beyond the extended period of limitation A Division Bench comprising of Justices S. Manikumar and D. Krishnakumar, made this observation while considering an appeal filed against Single Bench order declining to set aside the order made in the condone delay petition filed by the petitioner to condone 223 days in filing the appeal before the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals). Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/appellate-authorities-special-statutes-cannot-asked-condone-delay-beyond-extended-period-limitation-madras-hc/
Post a Comment
Read more

'Seize assets to pay damages to accident victim'

Her story might be an inspiration for the physically challenged but justice has remained elusive for her. In 2008, a bus accident left research engineer S Thenmozhi, 30, paraplegic. In April 2013, the motor accident claims tribunal directed the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (TNSTC) to provide her a compensation of 57.9 lakh. However, TNSTC refused to budge and on Tuesday a city court ordered attaching of movable assets of the transport corporation. Thenmozhi was employed in C-DOT, a telecom technology development centre in Bangalore. On July 21, 2008, she was coming to Chennai in a private bus. Around 2am, the bus had a flat tyre and the driver parked it on the left side of the road near Pallikonda in Vellore district on the Bangalore-Chennai highway. While the tyre was being changed, a TNSTC bus of Dharmapuri division hit the stationary bus. The rear part of the bus was smashed and passengers were injured. Thenmozhi who had a seat at the back of the bus suffered...
Post a Comment
Read more

Mumbai ITAT rules income of offshore discretionary trust is subject to tax in India

The Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently determined the following issue in the affirmative in the case of Manoj Dhupelia: Should the income of an offshore discretionary trust be subject to tax in India, if no distributions have been made to beneficiaries in India? The question arose from appeals filed by individual beneficiaries in relation to a Lichtenstein-based trust, the Ambrunova Trust and Merlyn Management SA (the Trust) with the ITAT. It is important to note that the individuals in this case were amongst those first identified by the Government of India (GOI) as holding undeclared bank accounts in Lichtenstein. The ITAT ruling raises the following issues: Taxation of Trust Corpus: ITAT classified the corpus of the trust as "undisclosed income" and declared it taxable in the hands of the beneficiaries. Taxation of Undistributed Income: ITAT refused to draw a distinction between the corpus and undistributed income from the trust and declared i...
Post a Comment
Read more