TMI Blog1998 (7) TMI 59X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ottapalam and the house was maintained/being maintained by his family (as good as by him) as his house, the Tribunal is right in law and fact in holding that "a house at Ottapalam in which he had rights as a coparcener and his family was residing therein cannot be a ground for treating the assessee as a resident ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and also in view of the fact that the house was being maintained by his family members who were residing therein, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that though the assessee had a share in the residential house as a result of notional partition by operation of law pursuant to the abolition of Hindu joint family system in Kerala, it does not mean that the assesse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to be maintained for him a dwelling place in India for 182 days or more in that year; and (2) that the assessee has been in India for 30 days or more in the relevant previous year. Both the conditions are to he established concomitantly not alternatively. Admittedly, the assessee lived in India only for 75 days. It means, to satisfy condition No. 2, he lived for more than 30 days in India. But the question is whether the Revenue has established that the assessee maintained or caused to be maintained for him a dwelling place in India for 182 days in the relevant previous year. The facts are that the assessee is a member of a Hindu undivided family (HUF), which owns a house in India. In that house, the family of the assessee also stayed. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he respondent, and, therefore, the respondent was rightly held to be a non-resident. No better is the position of the assessee herein. There is nothing on record to indicate that the karta of the family maintained the house for the benefit or at the instance of the assessee. The house belonged to the Hindu undivided family. The assessee may have a share in the said house, but the fact is that neither was the house maintained by the assessee nor was that maintained by the karta at the behest of the assessee and, therefore, the requirements of section 6(1)(b) of the Act have not been fulfilled. A contrary view was taken in Ramjibhai Hansjibhai Patel v. ITO [1964] 53 ITR 547 (Guj), which was referred to by the Supreme Court in the case of Ra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
