9911796707
TMI Blog1977 (9) TMI 48X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The assessee is also assessed separately in his status as an individual. In his assessments for the years 1967-68 to 1971-72 as originally completed (in the status of individual), it appears, no share of profit from M/s. Anil Machine Tools was included. Subsequently, the assessments were reopened under s. 147 and in these reassessments the share of profits falling not only to the assessee (in the capacity as karta) but the share of profits allocated to Amarjit Kaur in the file of the said firm, were also included in his assessments for these years, as individual. As regards the asst. yrs. 1972-73 and 1973-74 there were no reassessments but the same inclusions were effected in the assessments under s. 143(3) following the reassessments for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ble only to individuals, such an inclusion in the hands of the HUF was not correct. (ii) Later. (In March, 1966) the ITO took a different view. He concluded that the share-income of Amarjit Kaur was to be included in the assessments of the assessee as an individual, in view of s. 64. (iii) The contribution of capital in the firm of M/s. Anil Machine Tools was made by the assessee out of his HUF funds. This fact was accepted by the ITO at the time of original assessment. In fact, the ITO who was present at the time of the present appeal proceedings also did not refute this fact. It had to be held, therefore, that the share of profit from the said firm belonged to the HUF and not to the assessee-individual. (iv) An individual can join a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed that in a case where an individual is a partner in a firm as a karta of his joint-family, s. 64 will not be applicable. He pointed out that this specific issue came up for consideration before a Full Bench of the Tribunal and that the Tribunal held there that such an inclusion under s. 64 was not permissible. (Kanhaya Lal Rajgarhia vs. ITO Special Circle III,New Delhi(1)). In the absence of any other authority specifically on this issue, Shri Chopra submits that the decision of the Full Bench is binding and that the assessee should succeed on that ground. 8. On the objection relating to the status of the assessee as a partner in a representative capacity, reliance is placed on the findings of fact recorded by the AAC in this regard. Sh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... C, in my view, was correct in directing that the share-income falling to be assessed in the hands of the HUF should to excluded from the assessments of the assessee-individual here. This contention of the Revenue is, therefore, rejected. 10. The legal contention remains. The question is whether s. 64 can be invoked in such a case as this so as to include Amarjit Kaur's share of profits in the hands of the assessee-individual here. I find Shri Chopra's reliance on the Full Bench decision is well-placed. The issue stands decided by the Full Bench of the Tribunal in favour of the assessee. Following the reasoning and conclusions recorded by the Full Bench, it is held that the AAC was correct in directing that the share of profits of the wife ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
