Case: Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. P.M. Muthuraman Chettiar &amp; Another

2. The short facts giving rise to the two appeals are these. The assessee in Civil Appeal No. 429 of 1960 is a Hindu undivided family consisting of a father and his minor son. The assessee carried on business as a money lender and a dealer in shares in what was then known as British India. The assessee was also a partner in threefirms carrying on business at Penang, Kuantan and Raub. By reason of the residence of the manager in the year of assessment which wasthe assessee was treated as resident and ordinarily resident in the taxable territories. In the course of the assessment proceedings, the assessee claimed that it had incurred a loss of Rs. 23,672 in the three foreign businesses in which it was a partner, and it claimed a set off of this sum against its income from the money lending business within the taxable territories. Theauthorities negatived the claim and this order was confirmed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and by the Tribunal. The reasoning on which the claim was disallowed by the Tribunal was this: the Tribunal said that when an assessee carried on more businesses than one and sustained loss in one of them. the same could be set off against the income from other business under S. 10 of the IndianAct 1922. but that principle was not applicable where the business carried on by the assessee was in partnership with others. The Tribunal expressed the view that in such a case S. 10 of the IndianAct would not apply and the right to set off would arise only under S. 24 and as none of theof that section were attracted to the case, the assessee was not entitled to the relief claimed.

Reasoning: 6. It appears that in the High Court the point urged on behalf of the present appellant was that there was no identity between the unit which derived the income and the units which sustained the loss and on this ground it was urged that there could be no set off under S. 10 which permitted the loss incurred by the same unit being set off against the profit derived by it; in other words, the argument was that underlaw when an individual or the Karta of a Hindu undivided family was a partner in a firm, the unit of assessment in regard to the firms profits or gains was the firm itself which was an entity separate and distinct from the partners composing it, notwithstanding that for the purpose of computing the total income of an individual, his share of the profits from the firm has to be included in his total income. The High Court repelled this argument and, in our opinion. rightly repelled it in the circumstances of these twowas observed therein that whether a firm was registered or unregistered, a partners share of the loss in the firm could be set off against the profits and gains made by him in his individual business. That principle applies in the present cases, even though after the amendment of theAct in 1939 the position of a partner in an unregistered firm may stand on a different footing, a distinction which is not material for the presentseems clear to us that that proviso has no application to the facts of the cases under our consideration. In Commissioner ofin and Coorg v.ITR l: (AIR 1959 SC 713  ), this Court pointed out that the object of S. 24 (1) of the IndianAct was to allow the set off of loss of profits or gains under one head against income, profits or gains under any other head, and there was nothing in the section or in the first proviso thereto which would favour the disintegration of the head "business"; it further pointed out that S. 10 of the IndianAct did not distinguish between business in British India and business in an Indian State or so divide business. The ratio of that decision must apply to the cases under our consideration and the assessees are entitled to set off losses which they had suffered in business outside the taxable, territories against profits and gains made from business within the taxable territories. It is worthy of note that though the profits of each distinct business may have to he computed separately, the tax is chargeable under S. 10, not on the separate income of every distinct business, but on the aggregate of the profits of all the businesses carried on by the assessee. It follows from this that where the assessee carries on several businesses, he is entitled under S. l0 old not under S. 24 (1), to set off losses in one business against profits in another. If as we hold that S. 24 (1) has no application to the facts of the present cases, the second proviso thereto can also have no application. Moreover, the second proviso to S. 24 (1) applies only where the assessee is an unregistered firm. That is not the case here. The assessees before us are, in one case, a Hindu undivided family and, in the other, an individual. It is obvious, therefore, that the second proviso to S. 24 (1) can have no application in these cases.