9911796707
TMI Blog1975 (5) TMI 25X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch was added in the income of the assessee by the ITO without properly considering the provisions of s. 64 of the IT Act, 1961. 2. Shri Sanjay Kumar the minor son of the assessee was a partner admitted to the benefits of partnership in a firm Ramji Lal Rajendra Preshad alongwith his father who was also a partner therein. The ITO included his share of profit in the hands of the assessee. The asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Rs. 37,608 was received by him which represented half share of Rs. 75,216 as per will of Smt. Asharfi Devi from the books of Jai Parkash Ravinder Nath A copy of account of Smt. Asharfi Devi in the books of Jai Prakash Ravinder Nath has also been filed. According to him, it was out of this amount that a sum of Rs, 25,000 was deposited in the firm Ramji Lal Rajinder Pershad on5th Oct., 1970in th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pplying the provisions of s. 64(1)(ii), the same had arisen to the minor on account of his admission to the benefits of the partnership, the interest cannot, be added in the hands o the assessee as the same did not arise because of his admission as partner to the benefits of the partnership in the firm as he could have been admitted to the benefits of partnership even without introducing any capit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... im. 4. In our opinion, there is force in the submission of the assessee s Representative. The assessee has shown from the copies of various accounts how this amount which came to be possessed by Sanjay Kumar (as per will of Smt. Ashrafi Devi on transfer of half the amount standing in her credit in a certain firm). The copy of the partnership deed shows that the firm had come into existence on9th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed in (1973) Taxation 34(6) page 19, in my opinion, supports the contention raised by the assessee s representative and following the same with respect, I am of the opinion that the authorities below were not right in upholding the addition of Rs. 1,020 the interest received by Sanjay Kumar, minor son of the assessee, in the hands of his father under s. 64 of the IT Act. The same is accordingly de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
