TMI Blog1991 (3) TMI 192X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2. He has further erred in holding that income from goldsmithy business belonged to Sucha Ram (Indl) and not to the HUF. 3. He has further errred in holding that no cognisance of Col. Nos. 11, 12, and 13 of Annexure 'C' should be taken while computing the income of the HUF." The respondent-HUF derived income from money-lending and agriculture. It composed of Sucha Ram, Karta, his two brothers and widow of his pre-deceased brother. Two members of the assessee- HUF, i.e., Sucha Ram and Sukhdev Singh, held licences under the Gold Control Act, in their individual capacity. These licences were not transferable. Sucha Ram, Karta, in his individual capacity, was carrying on business of goldsmithy and earning income therefrom. The learned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o hold the goldsmithy business as belonging to the HUF. The ITO has himself admitted in para 3 of the order that both Sucha Ram and Sukhdev Singh have been maintaining separate registers of goldsmithy business which contain, besides other particulars, weight of jewellery left by various customers with them. Having noticed this fact, the conclusion drawn by the learned ITO is in contradiction with his own findings. It may be mentioned that there is no presumption that a business carried on by a member or even by a Karta of the family (HUF) is family business even where the family owns considerable funds. It is for the assessing authority to establish that the income earned is income of HUF and not of the member of the family or that family f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ition is likely to serve any useful purpose. The approach and conclusion of the learned CIT(A) is perfectly in order and in fact nothing special or specific was pointed out before us on behalf of the Revenue to differ or deviate from the finding under challenge for all the years. We thus, agreeing with the reasons of the learned CIT(A), see no merit in the common grounds taken before us on behalf of the Revenue. The common grounds are thus rejected. 6. Another common ground raised before us is that the CIT(A) erred in deleting the interest charged under ss. 139(8) and 217. It is seen, on perusal of the learned CIT(A)'s finding on ground No. 3 before him, that the interest was deleted for asst. yrs. 1978-79, 1983-84 and 1984-85, by follow ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
