2009 (3) TMI 68 - HC - Income Tax

In assessee s own case revenue s appeal stand dismissed by tribunal, HC and by SC - in absence of any independent reasoning in the impugned order of the Tribunal, the earlier orders of High Court are required to be followed and applied - Tribunal is right concluding that share income from the firm of the 2 smaller HUFs cannot be clubbed in the hands of the bigger HUF therefore revenue s appeal is dismissed

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether share income from smaller HUFs can be clubbed in the hands of the bigger HUF?
2. Whether the income of other HUFs can be excluded from the assessee's income due to non-recognition of partition under section 171(9) of the Act?

Analysis:
1. The appellant-revenue raised two questions regarding the clubbing of share income from smaller HUFs in the hands of the bigger HUF. The Tribunal had previously taken a similar view in the appellant's case for the earlier Assessment Year. The counsel could not provide information on the outcome of the Tribunal's order for the previous year. However, the counsel presented a copy of the Tribunal's order for Assessment Years 1980-81 and 1981-82, which was challenged in the High Court and later in the Apex Court. Despite efforts, the counsel could not provide details of the Apex Court's order. Due to the lack of independent reasoning in the impugned order, the High Court's earlier decisions were deemed applicable, and as no referable question of law was found, the appeal was dismissed.

2. The second issue involved the exclusion of income from other HUFs due to the non-recognition of partition under section 171(9) of the Act. The Tribunal's decision in the appellant's case for the earlier year was considered, along with the subsequent legal proceedings in the High Court and the Apex Court. The counsel's efforts to obtain information on the Apex Court's order were acknowledged. In the absence of independent reasoning in the impugned order, the High Court's previous decisions were to be followed. As no substantial question of law was identified, the appeal was dismissed.

In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the appeal based on the lack of independent reasoning in the impugned order and the need to follow the earlier decisions of the High Court in similar matters. The issues regarding the clubbing of share income from smaller HUFs and the exclusion of income from other HUFs were analyzed in light of previous legal proceedings, ultimately leading to the dismissal of the appeal.