TMI Blog1975 (8) TMI 32X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Wealth-tax Act ?" The assessees in the six cases along with one Aminchand Dwarkadas were partners in a firm of partnership by name Messrs. Gocooldas Jamnadas and Company, Madras. In respect of the assessment year 1964-65, they submitted their individual returns of wealth, the relevant valuation date being October 17, 1963. The assessees' wealth included properties, shares in companies and interest in the firm of partnership, Messrs. Gocooldas Jamnadas and Company, Madras. One of the assets of the partnership was a house bearing No. 8, Nowroji Road, Madras, in which the partners were residing. In their return under the Wealth-tax Act, each of these assessees valued their share in this house separately and claimed deduction under s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... particular property or asset of a partnership firm and that, therefore, section 5(1)(iv) was not applicable. It may be mentioned that before the Tribunal, it was admitted on behalf of the assessees that the house No. 8, Nowroji Road, belonged to the partnership firm at the relevant period and formed part of the assets of that firm. The Tribunal accordingly set aside the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and restored the order of the Wealth-tax Officer. At the instance of the assessees, the above question has been referred. The learned counsel for the assessees strenuously contended that though the house property was an asset of the partnership firm, the property vested only in the individual partners and the partnership as s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... money or even property including immovable property. Once that is done whatever is brought in would cease to be the exclusive property of the person who brought it in. It would be the trading asset of the partnership in which all the partners would have interest in proportion to their share in the joint venture of the business of partnership. The person who brought it in would, therefore, not be able to claim or exercise any exclusive right over any property which he has brought in, much less over any, other partnership property. He would not be able to exercise his right even to the extent of his share in the business of the partnership. As already stated his right during the subsistence of the partnership is to get his share of profits f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... clause (a) and sub-clauses (i), (ii) and (iii) of clause (b) of section 48." Therefore, the assessees in this case cannot claim to be entitled to any portion of this house property as exclusively belonging to them. The learned counsel for the assessees may be well founded in his contention if the words " belonging to the assessee " in section 5(1)(iv) would take in not only the right as a full owner, but also the interest of a life interest holder or any other partial interest as held in Controller of Estate Duty v. Estate of Late Sanka Simhachalam . But that question does not arise for consideration in this case as the property is an asset of the partnership firm and was not owned by a group of individuals in their own right. We are, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
