TMI Blog1978 (2) TMI 116X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e income of the firm M/s. Deonarain Jagadishlal. Later, he filed a revised return in the status of individual showing the share-income from M/s. Metalex Industries only. A separate return in the status of H.U.F. showing the share-income from Deonarain Jagadishlal was filed simultaneously. The Income-tax Officer accepted the first return and assessed the income of Metalex Industries in the status of individual. At the same time, he clubbed the share income from Deonarain Jagadishlal in the same assessment made on the individual. 3. The case of the assessee was that the H.U.F. of which the assessee was a member was the real partner in the aforesaid firm as the capital to become a partner was provided by the H.U.F. The Income Tax Officer ob ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as invalid under s. 140(b) inasmuch as it was not signed by the Karta. 4. The assessee appealed to the AAC and by his written submissions dated 30th March, 1977 pleaded that the Income-tax Officer was not justified in his action. The Appellate Asst. Commissioner dismissed the appeal on the short ground that the return filed in the status of HUF was invalid and so, the Income-tax Officer was quite justified in his action. 5. In this further appeal, Sri K.P. Misra, the learned advocate for the assessee, urged before us that the authorities below erred in their decision. He took us through the written submissions dated 30th March, 1977 given before the AAC and stated that none of the reasons given by the Income-tax Officer altered his ow ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e partner came from the H.U.F. of which he was a member. If that is so, then the income earned with the help of those funds belonged to the H.U.F. It is not necessary to state in the partnership-deed any private arrangement that a partner may have with third parties. Even so, in this case, the partnership-deed states that the loan of the H.U.F. be transferred as the capital of the partner who was a member of the HUF. These entries have apparently been done in the books of the firm. In the past, as found by the Income-tax Officer himself, the share-income was assessed in the status of H.U.F. These funds were lying to the credit of the H.U.F. in the books of the firm. All these facts do not leave any doubt as to the intention of the H.U.F. to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... resentative before us but find that the same is not tenable because the first ground taken by the assessee before the AAC is directed against the tagging of the share income from Deonarain Jagadishlal to the individual income of the assessee. The assessee was very much aggrieved against this tagging which aspect the Appellate Asst. Commissioner did not deem it necessary to consider. It is unnecessary to go into the interpretation of the Tribunal's order in the case of the other partner, Smt. Umalal. For the above reasons we hold that the authorities below were not justified in clubbing the income of the H.U.F., which is a separate entity under the Income-tax Act, along with the individual income of the assessee. We direct that the income of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
