9911796707
TMI Blog1993 (1) TMI 119X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion on 6th June, 1974 when its movable assets in the form of cash Rs. 1,05,000 and gold/silver stood divided amongst the members of the HUF. A deed of partial partition effected was also drawn up and filed. The Assessing Officer was requested to pass necessary order under s. 171. The Assessing Officer examined the issue at length and taking into account the statements recorded at the time of search in September, 1981 of Shri Kanhaiyalal as also subsequent statements of the Karta and the two sons, reached the conclusion that (a) no HUF existed; (b) there was no evidence regarding availability of cash of Rs. 1,05,000 as the books of accounts allegedly maintained and reflecting this amount were claimed to have been destroyed in a fire in 1976; ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which stood destroyed in a fire; the balance sheet as prepared on 6th June, 1974 was properly prepared disclosing assets of Rs. 1,45,000, as investment in money lending business; cash in hand and advance for plot Rs. 6,000. He further noted that the mother was given gold and silver ornaments and gold pieces for worship. The CIT(A) also noted that there were no material contradictions in the statements of the members of the said HUF vitiating its claim for partial partition as alleged by the Assessing Officer and whatever contradictions were noted, were properly explained. The CIT(A) for the reasons given in paras 9 to 21 of his order, gave a categorical finding that the assessee HUF existed and had in fact effected partial partition on 6th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is assets duly disclosing his balance of Rs. 40,000 with Shri Kanhaiyalal. Dr. D.K. Jain had received Rs. 35,000 on 6th June, 1974 at the time of partial partition which he had kept with his father, Shri Kanhaiyalal. The assessment in the case of Dr. D.K. Jain stood completed on 30th Nov., 1976 which is much before the date of search. A subsequent balance sheet for the asst. yr. 1977-78 also disclosed deposit of Rs. 50,000 with Shri Kanhaiyalal. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the learned CIT(A) took the correct view in holding that there existed assessee-HUF as on 6th June, 1974 when a partial partition was effected between various members of the family, dividing cash and other assets. In the circumstances, we find no merit in this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
