9911796707
TMI Blog1991 (11) TMI 29X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unting to Rs. 10,636 and Rs. 21,436 for the assessment years 1969-70 and 1970-71, respectively, which were assessed as his individual income, could be revised as income from Hindu undivided family in a proceeding under section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in respect of the assessed income from another partnership firm, Messrs. Parmer Pictures ? " The assessee is a partner in two partnership firms, namely, M/s. Parmer Pictures and M/s. Karmandana and others. During the assessment proceedings, the assessee took the stand that he was a partner in the firm, M/s. Karmandana and others, as the karta of his Hindu undivided family and, as such, the share income derived by him from this firm was not assessable in his hands in his status as " in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d family of the assessee, it is not possible to give a different character to this very income for the assessment years under consideration. It has been contended by Mr. L. N. Rastogi, learned senior counsel for the Department, that, if the capital in the firm, M/s. Karmandana and others which has been inherited by the assessee be treated as self-acquired property of the father of the assessee, then in view of section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, as interpreted by the Supreme Court in the case of CWT v. Chander Sen [1986] 161 ITR 370, the share income from the firm can be assessed in the hands of the assessee only in the status of individual. I am unable to accept this contention for the simple reason that, whether the capital in the fir ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... this legal aspect, in my considered view, there was nothing wrong on the part of the appellate authorities in entertaining the objection of the assessee to the effect that his share income from the firm, M/s. Karmandana and others, could not have been legally assessed in his hands as his individual income.
Keeping in view the discussions made above, the question referred to this court is answered in the affirmative, i.e., against the Department and in favour of the assessee. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Let a copy of this order be transmitted to the Assistant Registrar of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna, in terms of section 260 of the Act.
S. K. CHATTOPADHYAYA J. -I agree. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
