Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + SC Income Tax - 1965 (3) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
1965 (3) TMI 24 - SC - Income TaxStatus of the assessee - Status of partnership firm after the demise of a Partner, the Karta of HUF - association of persons or a firm within the meaning of section 16(1)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1922 - Who can be Karta of HUF - whether the widow of Nandlal could under Hindu law be a karta of the joint Hindu family consisting of three widows and two minors. Held that:- In the case of a partnership consisting of only two partners, no partnership remains on the death of one of them - In law and in fact there is an interregnum between the death of one and the succession to him. We accept the view of the Allahabad [1951 (9) TMI 49 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] and Madras High Courts [1958 (12) TMI 46 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] and reject the view expressed by the Nagpur and Calcutta High Courts. - The partnership between Nandlal and Bachhulal came to an end on the death of Nandlal on December 9, 1945 Widow as Karta of HUF - HELD THAT:- The Madras [1949 (12) TMI 36 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] and Orissa High Courts [1957 (9) TMI 78 - ORISSA HIGH COURT] held that coparcenership is a necessary qualification for the managership of a joint Hindu family and as a widow is not admittedly a coparcener, she has no legal qualifications to become the manager of a joint Hindu family. - We are clearly of the opinion that the Madras view is correct. Status of HUF and Firm after the minor son becomes major - HELD THAT:- After Venkatlal became a major, there was no obstacle in his representing his branch of the family in the partnership. Indeed, it was conceded in the High Court that there was a partnership from December 13, 1949, when Venkatlal attained majority. Having regard to the said circumstances and the concession, we must hold that from December 13, 1949, the business was carried on in partnership between Venkatlal, representing his branch of the family, and Bachhulal, representing his branch of the family. For the assessment year 1950-51 the status of the assessee was that of a firm within the meaning of section 16(1)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1922.The Tribunal misdirected itself in law in reaching the conclusion that the parties could not be regarded as partners. Appeal dismissed.
|