9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Assessment of managing agency commission as joint family income. Analysis: The case involves determining whether the managing agency commission earned by one individual should be considered joint family income or individual income. The individual, Murugappa Chettiar, and his brother entered into a managing agency agreement in 1932, while they were members of a Hindu joint undivided family. Subsequently, a partition occurred between the brothers, but no specific mention of the managing agency rights was made in the partition deed. The Income-tax Officer treated the commission earned by Murugappa as joint family income, which was upheld by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Appellate Tribunal, leading to this reference. The judgment discusses two ways to establish the managing agency commission as joint family property: either by proving the agreement was obtained on behalf of the family or by showing the income was earned using joint family funds. The Tribunal's decision was challenged, as it presumed the income as joint family income based on past assessments, which was deemed incorrect. The argument that the agreement was on behalf of the joint family was also refuted, as the document was signed by the brothers individually, with no indication of family representation. Furthermore, the contention that joint family funds were utilized in purchasing shares in the company was dismissed, as the agreement was based on the promotion of the company, not shareholding. The judgment emphasized that the purchase of shares, the managing agency agreement, and the rights acquired were not interlinked to establish joint family income. The previous years' assessments as joint family income were not sufficient to convert future income into joint family income, as per Hindu law principles. The judgment cites a previous case where managing agency rights were considered joint family property due to the sale of family assets to the new company. It distinguishes cases where no detriment to the family estate was involved in acquiring the managing agency office. Ultimately, the court held that the managing agency commission should be treated as the individual income of Murugappa Chettiar, overturning the Tribunal's decision.
|
