TMI Blog1933 (7) TMI 23X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s the head of the family consisting of the sons and the grandsons, who owned the entire business though Mathra Das claims it to be his self-acquired property. On 13th August 1929, Mathra Das made a will in which he recited that in the month of May that year lie had given certain shops to his sons and other members of his family retaining only four items of property and the business in Bannu and th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er the document made on 13th August 1929 does not evidence the disruption of the Hindu undivided family? (2) Whether Messrs. Mathra Das and Sons, Bannu, is not to be assessed only in respect of the income from the general merchandise shop at Bannu as was done for 1930-31 assessment? (3) Whether under the circumstances of the case, it is legal to assess the income of all the shops in the hands of L ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he division of the property or the gift in question. The document therefore does not evidence the disruption of the Hindu undivided family in the sense in which that term I must be understood under Section 25(A), Income Tax Act. The answer to the second question naturally follows from the answer to the first question. It appears that in 1930-31, the Income Tax Officer accepted the allegation of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re was no real partition in May 1929 or a genuine gift of the shops by the father to the sons and others, but that the whole transaction was bogus. That being so, on the facts found by the Income Tax Authorities the assessment is not open to any legal objection. Question 3 also must be deemed to have been answered in the light of the observations made above. I would therefore answer the questions ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
