TMI Blog1944 (2) TMI 15X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rent whether the income derived from the property was ever distributed among Dr. Subhan Ali's children and if so distributed, in what shares. This is, however, clear that in the assessment year 1938-39 Abdul Rehman was treated by the Income-tax authorities as the principal officer of the association of individuals consisting of himself, his brother and his two sisters, and that in the assessment year 1940-41 Abdul Rehman himself adopted the dignified name of the administrator of the estate of Dr. Subhan Ali. In all these years the descendants of Dr. Subhan Ali were taxed as an association of individuals. On the 29th August 1940, the two daughters of Dr. Subhan Ali instituted a suit against their two brothers for partition and rendition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ate order dated 22nd October 1941, in connection with 1940-41 assessment, wherein he held that all the assets were still being jointly owned, jointly managed and jointly developed and that there was not even a distribution of the income earned. The appellant's representative, who has appeared, has not brought any evidence whatsoever, to prove the contrary. Under these circumstances, the assessment was rightly made on the Association of Persons status * * * *. The appellate order referred to above further states that there is a dispute between the members of the family, as to whether they are governed by customary law or by Muhammadan Law and civil litigation is also going on between them. This fact amply proves that even the shares of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e attracted if the shares of the owners of the properties were definite and ascertainable. It was further correctly stated that ordinarily if the owners of the properties were members of a Muhammadan family, their shares were definite and ascertainable. But the question still arises whether in the circumstances of this case the Income-tax authorities could come to a decision that the shares of the owners of the properties in question were definite and ascertainable. On behalf of the assessee it is contended that inasmuch as the share of an heir, whether he is governed by Muhammadan law or by ustomary law, is ascertainable, the assessee should have been given the benefit of sub-section (3) of section 9, irrespective of the fact that a l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
