Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1990 (11) TMI 90

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... s 1978-79, 1979-80 and 1980-81 ?" The assessee is a Hindu undivided family comprising Shri Om Prakash Tandon, his wife, Smt. Pushpa Tandon, and two minor sons, Sanjeet Kumar and Vineet Kumar, besides two unmarried daughters, Reena and Gunjan. Om Prakash Tandon is the karta. As the karta of this Hindu undivided family, he was a partner in two firms, Messrs. Shree Sidh Co. (Agra) and Messrs. Sanjeet Kumar Vineet Kumar. The assessee-Hindu undivided family was maintaining its own books of account. We are concerned herein with assessment year 1978-79, the previous year whereof began on January 24, 1977, and ended on February 11, 1978. On January 24, 1977, the assessee's capital investment in the firm, Shree Sidh Co., was Rs. 1,23,734. During .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 1977, the assessee executed a memo of partial partition. Besides recording the distribution of Rs. 50,000 as stated above, the memo stated that, out of the profits received from the firm, Shree Sidh Co., a sum of Rs. 8,000 will be paid to Kum. Reena and another sum of Rs. 8,000 to Kum. Gunjan and the remaining profits will be distributed in the following manner: (i) Master Sanjeet Kuntar - 1/4 th share; (ii) Master Vineet Kumar - 1/4 th share; (iii) Om Prakash Tandon ; and Smt. Pushpa (smaller Hindu undivided family), the remaining half share. (v) On February 11, 1978, entries were made in the assessee's books of account with respect to the profit received from the said firm, Rupees 8,000 was paid to each of the two unmarried dau .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nternal partition with which the firm had no concern. The Explanation to section 171 is satisfied in this case inasmuch as the amount has been divided in the manner it is capable of division. The Income-tax Officer was also not right in holding that provision for maintenance and marriage of minor daughters is not permissible in a partial partition. It is for the members of the Hindu undivided family to decide when to make such a provision. The Revenue appealed to the Tribunal. The Tribunal referred to the facts aforesaid and reversed the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The Tribunal found that the plea of partial partition cannot be accepted. The Tribunal referred to the circumstances that, in the books of the firm, there was .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ily. It is only a case of division of an asset among some of the members of the Hindu undivided family. In such a case, there was no occasion, much less a necessity, to make any entries in the books of the firm recording or reflecting the partial partition. The Tribunal could not have disbelieved the plea of partial partition on the ground of absence of entries to that effect in the books of the firm. The partial partition was duly recorded in the books of the assessee-Hindu undivided family. It was also evidenced by a memo of partial partition. The Tribunal's finding is, therefore, unsustainable, whereas the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner is perfectly in accordance with law and is based upon a proper appreciation of the rele .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... n was divided in the same proportion among them. It, therefore, cannot be said, in the circumstances, that the finding recorded by the Tribunal is either perverse or is based on no evidence. It cannot also be said that any of the several reasons for which the Tribunal has recorded its finding is irrelevant or inadmissible. The evidentiary value of the several reasons may vary, but that is not the same thing as taking into consideration any inadmissible or irrelevant circumstance or fact. Facts must be distinguished from reasons. Reasoning may be faulty, but that is not the same thing as consideration of irrelevant or inadmissible facts or circumstances which vitiates the finding, as contemplated in Dhirajlal Girdharilal v. CIT [1954] 26 ITR .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates