9911796707
TMI Blog1983 (12) TMI 118X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the status of HUF. This assessment was set aside to be redone. The ITO issued a specific notice under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') in the status of AOP. The assessee filed a return under protest. The income shown was, Rs. 9,600. The assessee claimed that it was an HUF consisting of S/Shri Ramamohan Rao, Rajasekhar and Ramesh, minors. The ITO did not accept the contention that there was a HUF. He held that the income of Rs. 9,600 was income of AOP but declared as not assessable as the income was below the taxable limit. 3. For the assessment year 1979-80, again a notice under section 148 was issued since the original assessment suffered the same fate as in the earlier year. Again the assessee filed the return under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oncern of S. Sriramulu, the father of the minors, who constituted a HUF with the mother of the minors. 9. From the aforesaid deposits interest accrued and was credited to the joint account of the three persons. Such interest credits came to Rs. 9,600 in the accounting period relevant to the assessment year 1978-79 and Rs. 7,730 in the accounting year relevant to the assessment year 1979-80. The point that arises is in what status is the interest assessable. 10. The assessee contends that the status in which it is assessable is that of a HUF. No doubt, the donor in the deed of gift stated that the gift made to the three minors jointly was to the joint family comprised of them. Minors were joint in status with their father regarding certa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re invested as lump sum with the firm which belonged to the HUF, of which the father was the karta and the other member was the mother of the minors. The question that arises is whether the yield of such investment would be assessable in the hands of the three minors together in the status of an AOP. We have the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of G. Murugesan Bros. v. CIT [1973] 88 ITR 432 where their Lordships have observed as under : " For forming an 'association of persons', the members of the association must join together for the purpose of producing an income. An 'association of persons' can be formed only when two or more individuals voluntarily combine together for a certain purpose. Hence volition on the part of the m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... present case all the three persons who received the gifts are minors. There is no evidence whatsoever to show that through guardian acting for each of them separately (in this case it is understood the guardian was the same person), it was decided that all the three minors should combine together voluntarily for receiving income. There is no evidence that any guardian acted on their behalf to voluntarily combine because their only contention was that they constituted a HUF and there was no question of the guardian acting for each of the minors separately since a HUF is not an entity that can be brought into being by a guardian acting on behalf of a minor. The assertion that the unit constituted a HUF is, therefore, not a sufficient evidence ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
