9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Assessment of income-tax status of an individual as a Hindu undivided family. 2. Claim of partial partition in family business. 3. Validity of deed of partition. 4. Continuation of a member in a joint family post-partition. 5. Department's resistance to partial partition based on the allotment of share to an individual not entitled. Analysis: 1. The judgment pertains to a consolidated reference for the assessment years 1965-66 and 1966-67 under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The primary issue revolves around the assessment of the assessee's income-tax status from an individual to a Hindu undivided family. 2. The assessee claimed a partial partition in the family business carried out in the name of Munnilal and Company, with the total capital divided among family members. The claim was supported by entries in the books of accounts and a deed of partition dated 1st April, 1965. The Income-tax Officer initially rejected the claim, citing discrepancies in the deed. However, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Tribunal accepted the claim, ruling in favor of the assessee. 3. The department contended that the deed of partition was fictitious due to the date of the stamp paper being later than the date of execution. The assessee explained that the discrepancy was a typing error, which was accepted by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Tribunal as a genuine mistake. The court upheld this finding as a factual determination, stating no legal question arose from it. 4. The additional question raised by the Commissioner of Income-tax concerned the continued membership of an individual in the joint family post a complete partition in 1952. The Tribunal found that the acceptance of maintenance by the individual did not signify a relinquishment of her share. The court held that the department lacked the authority to declare the partition void ab initio based on the allotment of shares to unauthorized individuals. 5. The department's resistance to the partial partition based on the allotment of a share to an individual not entitled to it was dismissed by the court. The court declined to call for a reference on this issue, emphasizing that even if the department's contention was accepted, it would not impact the validity of the partial partition carried out by the assessee. In conclusion, the court upheld the validity of the partial partition claimed by the assessee and dismissed the department's contentions regarding the deed of partition and the continuation of a member in the joint family post-partition.
|
