TMI Blog1991 (4) TMI 48X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ax returns filed for the assessment years 1958-59 to 1970-71 and accepted by the Revenue ?" At the instance of the assessee, the Tribunal has referred another question which reads : "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee had become a partner in the partnership firm evidenced by the partnership deed dated December 30, 1956, in their individual capacity and not representing their smaller-HUFs ?" Lala Ganga Prasad Kanodia, Brij Mohan Kanodia and Devi Prasad Kanodia, three brothers, constituted a undivided Hindu family. They were carrying on business in the name and style of Sadiram Ganga Prasad. The business comprised several business/industrial units. On Decem ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ordingly. During the course of audit, an objection was raised by the audit party to the effect that, according to the partnership deed, the business was being carried on by the brothers as individuals and, therefore, the income received by them should be treated as individual income and not that of the smaller Hindu undivided families represented by each of them. On the basis of this note, the assessment was reopened. In this reference, we are concerned with two assessment years only, namely, the assessment years 1970-71 and 1973-74. Having reopened the assessment, the income was assessed as that of the individual in the hands of the assessee. Though the assessee raised an objection that the very initiation of reassessment proceedings ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... what is required is that the intention to blend the separate property with the joint family property should be unambiguous and clear. The Tribunal has taken the view that, by his consistent course of conduct over a period of more than 12 years, the assessee had unambiguously exhibited and indicated his intention of throwing his separate property into the common hotchpot. The action was voluntary and no material was brought to the notice of the Tribunal militating against his declaration and conduct aforesaid. In the circumstances, the Tribunal recorded the finding that there was a blending. We see no reason to disturb the finding. No reasons are brought to our notice indicating why and how the said finding is vitiated. Accordingly, we answ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
