9911796707
TMI Blog1978 (11) TMI 98X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he assessee was HUF and not individual. 2. The short facts in both these years are as follows : The assessee is a partner in the firm M/s. Ram soap Factory. There was a partial partition of the HUF on 26th Oct., 1965 between Shri Dhannamal, his wife and sons. After this partition a partnership firm is constituted wherein equal shares were given to each member of the HUF including the minor sons ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e income of the assessee us 64 of the income tax Act. At the same time, the ITO framed assessment on a protective measure as well in the status of HUF. In asst. yr. 1973-74 again the return was filed in the status of an HUF but this was not accepted and the assessment was completed taking the status as individual. The learned AAC cancelled the assessment years in the status of individual and held ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s is that even if there is a partial partition in an HUF the share income from the firm constituted by the erstwhile members of the HUF will be the income if the HUF consisting of the Karta and his wife and not the income of an individual. This view is based on the various decisions of the Supreme Court referred to by this Bench in ITA Nos. 651/652(1). The decisions are : (i) Gowli Budanna vs. C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and constitution of a partnership firm consisting of the assessee, his wife and his sons, each partner owned the asset individually and, therefore, the proper status of the assessee would only be an individual. This argument cuts across the basic principle enunciated in the various authorities and judgments cited above that a Hindu male and his wife will constitute an HUF even after partition of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
