9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Interpretation of a declaration made by the father regarding joint family properties and their division between sons, assessment of share income from a partnership firm in the status of HUF or individual, sufficiency of evidence to support the claim of joint family investment in the partnership firm. Analysis: The judgment involves the interpretation of a declaration made by the father regarding joint family properties and their division between sons. The appellants' father declared that a sum of Rs. 6,000 and gold jewelry are joint family properties to be divided equally between his two sons and their families. The dispute arose regarding the assessment of share income from a partnership firm, M/s Shilpe Electricals, in the status of HUF or individual. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) initially assessed the share income as individual income, citing lack of attestation of the declaration and insufficient evidence linking the investment in the partnership firm to the declared joint family funds. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner (AAC) upheld the individual assessment, noting the absence of satisfactory evidence regarding the origin of the funds left by the father. However, before the Tribunal, the appellants contended that the capital contributed to the partnership firm was from their father's assets, justifying their status as HUF. The departmental representative argued against accepting the appellants as HUF, emphasizing the lack of immediate execution of the partnership deed and the self-serving nature of the declaration. The Tribunal considered various factors, including the father's business background and financial capacity, the repayment of the declared sum by the son-in-law, and the partnership deed's recitals. The Tribunal found that the joint family funds were indeed invested in the partnership firm by the appellants, representing their respective HUFs. The Tribunal disagreed with the departmental representative's reliance on the decision in CIT vs. Durga Prasad More, emphasizing the specific circumstances of the case. The Tribunal highlighted the timeline of events, noting that the partnership deed was executed after the declaration but well before the ITO's request for evidence. The Tribunal found no basis to doubt the genuineness of the declaration and partnership deed, concluding that the share income should be assessed in the status of HUF. Ultimately, the appeals were allowed in favor of the appellants, establishing their status as HUF for the assessment of share income from the partnership firm.
|
