9911796707
TMI Blog1982 (5) TMI 104X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... F, used for the business of the firm in which the HUF is said to be a partner, for the assessment years 1978-79 and 1979-80. 2. The assessments for both the above assessment years were originally completed under section 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'), on 19-2-1980, adopting the share-income from the firm of V. Veeraraghavulu Co. in which the assessee-HUF was a partner. In those ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lised for the business by the firm in which the karta, his wife and a third party were partners, that up to 1977-78 rent was being charged and shown, that from 1978-79, however, no rent was charged, that the property was owned by the assessee-HUF, that the firm and HUF were separate entities and that in these circumstances the ITO was justified in estimating the property income at Rs. 1,200. Again ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e also pointed out that there was also a stranger partner in the firm. 4. I have considered the rival submissions. It is common ground that the share-income from the firm of V. Veeraraghavulu Co., Rajahmundry, belonged to the assessee-HUF. It is true that it is well-settled that the business carried on by a firm is the business carried on by its partners, that the share of a partner is busines ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en an HUF is represented by the karta or a member as partner in a firm, he occupies dual capacity qua the partnership, he functions in his individual capacity and qua the third parties, in his representative capacity. This position is well-settled by the ruling of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Bagyalakshmi Co. [1965] 55 ITR 660 (SC). Therefore, it is clear that so far as the firm is concerned, Shr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... held that the annual letting value of the said property should not be included in the total income of the assessee, an individual, under section 22 of the Act. The above decision would, therefore, not apply to the case of the assessee in this case, which is admittedly a HUF. I, therefore, confirm the consolidated order of the AAC for both the years. 5. In the result, the appeals are dismissed. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
