1972 (1) TMI 25 - HC - Income Tax

Member of Hindu Joint Family becomes partner with his separate assets with the karta of the joint family - partnership is entered into between the karta of a Hindu undivided family and an undivided member of the family held that validity of the partnership cannot be questioned where the undivided member brings in his separate property - Tribunal was right in holding that the partnership formed by the karta of the Hindu undivided family, with an undivided junior member of the same family, quoad his separate property was valid in law and, therefore, entitled to registration under the Income-tax Act

Summary

Issues:
Validity of partnership between karta of Hindu undivided family and junior member with separate property.
Assessment of income from partnership in Hindu undivided family.

Analysis:
The case involved a Hindu undivided family where the karta, Motilal, entered into a partnership with a junior member, Narendra Kumar, who brought in separate property as capital. The Income-tax Officer initially declined registration of the firm, stating that an undivided junior member could not be a partner with the karta. However, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner allowed registration, holding that the partnership was valid. The Tribunal also affirmed this decision.

The key question referred by the Tribunal was whether the partnership between Motilal and Narendra Kumar, with the latter's separate property, was valid in law and entitled to registration under the Income-tax Act. The court held that the partnership was indeed valid. Citing the Privy Council's decision in Lachhman Das v. Commissioner of Income-tax, it was established that a coparcener could bring in separate property and enter into a partnership with the karta, maintaining distinct ownership rights.

The court distinguished previous cases like Firm Bhagat Ram Mohan Lal and Pitambardas Bhikhabhai & Co., where separate assets were not brought into the partnership or the business belonged to the Hindu undivided family. Referring to Commissioner of Income-tax v. Sir Hukumchand Mannalal & Co., the court emphasized that individual members of a Hindu undivided family could enter partnerships with strangers for business purposes.

Additionally, the court discussed Manilal Dharamchand v. Commissioner of Income-tax, where the entire capital came from a loan from the parent Hindu undivided family. The court concluded that when a partnership involves the karta and an undivided member with separate property, the partnership's validity stands, and there is no confusion between the member's roles as a coparcener and a partner.

In conclusion, the court answered the questions in the affirmative, affirming the validity of the partnership and the exclusion of the income from the Hindu undivided family's assessment. The assessee was awarded costs and counsel fees in each case.