9911796707
TMI Blog1990 (10) TMI 146X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4. Brief facts of the case are that the aforesaid two minor sons of the assessee were admitted to the benefits of certain partnership firms as per the following details: Sl. No. Name of the partnership firm The date on which the minors were admitted to the benefits of partnership 1. Thermo Foam Industries 23-12-1971 2. Kold Hold Industries 23-12-1971 3. GangaSingh Sard Ghar 1-1-1969 4. Mohan Cold Storage 1-11-1968 5. Chahal Cold Storage 1-10-1966 The Assessing Officer assessed share of profit of Master Gurmeet Singh from these firms amounting to Rs. 56,576 and of Master Jagmeet Singh amounting to Rs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ual after1st April, 1976. According to the learned Departmental Representative it was immaterial whether the minors had been admitted to the benefits of partnership prior to 1st April, 1976, but what was material was that any income as arises directly or indirectly to a minor child of the Individual from the admission of the minor to the benefits of partnership in a firm has to be clubbed in the hands of such individual. 7. We have carefully considered the rival submissions as also the facts on record. There is no difficulty in accepting the proposition canvassed by the learned counsel for the assessee that the provision contained in s. 64(1)(iii) of the Act is a substantive provision. It is also a well settled rule of interpretation that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... il, 1976then the law would have provided so specifically. Indeed, it would have been anomalous to exclude the income of the minor children, who had been admitted to the benefits of partnership prior to1st April, 1976. 9. The case law relied upon by the learned counsel for the assessee is also distinguishable. In Govind Dass Ors. the facts were different. In that case the ITO has recorded a partial partition of moveable properties to an HUF as having been effected on 15th Nov., 1955, with there suit that from and after the asst. yr. 1957-58 the family ceased to be a partner in two firms and only two members of the family continued as partners in those years in their individual capacity. Consequent upon reassessments on the two firms for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion by the Rajasthan High Court. In that case transfer of immovable property had been effected prior to1st April, 1961. The High Court held that s. 27(1) was overriding and that s. 27 was a deeming provision and on the basis of that a person became the owner of house property. Since this deeming provision which overrides s. 64 came into existence from asst. yr. 1962-63, the assessee could not be considered to be the owner of property prior to asst. yr. 1962-63. It was because of the interpretation of s. 27 read with s. 64 that it was held that the income from transferred assets was not includible in total income of the assessee. 12. Having regard to the entire facts and circumstances of the case, we have no hesitation in saying that the i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 85when Explanation to s. 139(8) was added, assessment under s. 143(3) read with s. 147 of the Act was held to be as not a regular assessment. Some of the other decisions in this regard are as under: (i) Charles D Souza vs. CIT (1984) 40 CTR (Kar) 353 : (1984) 147 ITR 694 (Kar), (ii) B. Babu Co. vs. Sixth ITO (1987) 60 CTR (Kar) 33 : (1987) 163 ITR 654 (Kar), and (iii) Prakash Lal Khandelwal vs. ITO (1990) 81 CTR (Pat) 334 : (1989) 180 ITR 604 (Pat). In the present appeal we are concerned with asst. yr. 1977-78 and the proceedings were initiated by issue of notice under s. 148. Though we could have sent back the matter to the CIT(A) for a decision as he had omitted to deal with the ground of the assessee with regard to the levy of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
