1982 (8) TMI 27 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the Appellate Tribunal's order canceling the Additional Commissioner's order under section 263.
2. Legality of the partnership of M/s. G. Vasappa & Sons, Silk Dyes, and its entitlement to registration under the Income-tax Act, 1961.
3. Competency and validity of the order passed by a single member of the Appellate Tribunal.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Appellate Tribunal's Order Canceling the Additional Commissioner's Order Under Section 263:
The primary question was whether the Appellate Tribunal's order canceling the Additional Commissioner of Income-tax's order under section 263 for the assessment year 1971-72 was sound in law. The context involved G. Vasappa, the karta of an HUF, converting the HUF business into a partnership with his sons without a formal partition. The Additional Commissioner had canceled the registration granted by the ITO, contending that a legal partnership could only subsist if the joint property was first divided. The Tribunal, relying on the Mysore High Court's decision in I.P. Munavalli v. CIT, held that prior partition was not a pre-condition for forming a partnership between the karta and the HUF members. The High Court agreed with the Tribunal, stating that the principle of law does not require a prior partition for such partnerships, thus affirming the Tribunal's decision.

2. Legality of the Partnership of M/s. G. Vasappa & Sons, Silk Dyes, and Its Entitlement to Registration:
The second issue was whether the partnership of M/s. G. Vasappa & Sons was legally entitled to the benefits of registration under the Income-tax Act, 1961. The High Court analyzed various precedents, including Sundar Singh Majithia v. CIT and Lachhman Das v. CIT, which allowed partial partition and partnerships between the karta and individual family members bringing in separate property. The Court extended this principle to include partnerships where family members contribute their skill and labor. The High Court found no legal impediment to such partnerships and upheld the Tribunal's view that the partnership was entitled to registration.

3. Competency and Validity of the Order Passed by a Single Member of the Appellate Tribunal:
The third issue questioned the competency of a single member of the Appellate Tribunal to dispose of the appeal. The Department contended that the authorisation under section 255(3) of the Income-tax Act was invalid as the appeal did not involve the computation of total income. The High Court disagreed, stating that sub-section (3) does not restrict authorisation only to appeals involving total income computation. The authorisation extends to "any case" where the total income as computed does not exceed forty thousand rupees. Thus, the single member was competent to dispose of the appeal.

Conclusion:
The High Court answered all three questions in favor of the assessee. It upheld the Tribunal's decision that the partnership was entitled to registration and validated the competency of the single member of the Appellate Tribunal to dispose of the appeal. Consequently, the question in R.C. No. 23 of 1979 was also answered in favor of the assessee. The parties were directed to bear their own costs in both references.