TMI Blog1985 (4) TMI 16X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arLal, in the assets of the family. The assessee, M/s. Vardhichand Pannalal, Udaipur, filed appeals against the assessment orders of the Wealth-tax Officer. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner allowed the appeals filed by the assessee. In view of the finding of the Tribunal in the matter and also as held earlier in Appeal No. 1035/76-77 in its order dated July 14, 1977, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner opined that the Wealth-tax Officer was not justified in including the wealth belonging to Onkarlal and Narain Lal in the hands of the assessee. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner was further of the view that the wealth belonging to Vardhichand was rightly assessed in the hands of the assessee-Hindu undivided family. In view of this, he ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and Pannalal and I.T.A. Nos. 1312 and 1313, Shri Vardhichand, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has stated as under in its order dated March 20, 1979: " The Tribunal held after examining the facts of the case in detail that the correct status of Shri Vardhichand was that of a Hindu undivided family and that the firm was genuine as the partners, Svs. Onkarlal and Narainlal, were genuine partners and that they had also contributed their individual capital during the accounting years corresponding to the assessment years 1967-68 to 1969-70, inasmuch as the shares received by them from the firm from the assessment years 1956-57 onwards up to assessment year 1966-67, had been claimed by them as their individual income and bad been assessed by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... them from the firm during the assessment years 1956-57 to 1966-67 were their individual income. 3. This income was assessed by the taxing authorities as their individual income and those assessment orders have become final. 4. That Onkarlal and Narain Lal acquired the properties from the aforesaid individual income and they have been enjoying those properties as their individual personal property. 5. This property was contributed by them in the shape of capital in the firm and so it cannot be said that no capital was supplied by Onkarlal and Narainlal (partners) to the firm in respect of the assessment years in question. 6. That Onkarlal and Narainlal acquired the property after withdrawing their share income from the firm and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 79, and order dated September 9, 1980. It was held in CIT v. Heeralal Maliram [1972] 84 ITR 92 (Raj), by Division Bench of this, court that where the Appellate Tribunal accepts the version of a member of a Hindu undivided family that the member had sources of income with which he could purchase certain property and so that property cannot be said to be belonging to the joint family, that finding is a finding of fact and the Tribunal cannot be directed to state the case to the High Court under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The aforesaid decision is nearer to the point. Learned counsel for the Revenue invited our attention to V. D. Dhanwatey v. CIT [1968] 68 ITR 365 (SC), Sudhakar Manibhai Kulinsingh Manibhai v. CWT [1978] ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
