9911796707
TMI Blog1966 (7) TMI 3X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The assessee is Rangappa Setty who unsuccessfully made several attempts during the earlier period to have an assessment made on the basis that the income was the income of a Hindu joint family. It is undisputed that on December 8, 1958, a partition deed was executed, under which properties were allotted to Rangappa Setty, his wife and his three sons. One of the properties so allotted was the shop in which Rangappa Setty conducted his business. The contention of the assessee was that by the execution of the partition deed in this way, there was a throwing of the self-acquired properties of Rangappa Setty into the hotchpot of a Hindu joint family and the coming into being of a partnership between Rangappa Setty, his wife and two of his so ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the partition deed contained none, and that, without an express declaration in that form, there could be no throwing of the property of Rangappa Setty into the hotchpot of a Hindu undivided family. In the view that we take it is really not necessary for us to investigate the question whether there was any such declaration or whether the self-acquired properties of Rangappa Setty became the properties of a Hindu undivided family by any other process. We find from the partition deed which was executed on December 8, 1958, that the properties, whose income was assessed during all the earlier periods as the individual income of Rangappa Setty, were subjected to distribution between Rangappa Setty, his wife, Danamma, and his three sons. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as a recital in the partition deed in regard to the profits of the business of the shop which fell to the share of Rangappa Setty. The recital was that if Chennappa and Manjunath, the second and third sons of Rangappa Setty, co-operated with Rangappa Setty in the conduct of the business of the shop, out of the net profits, a two annas share should be paid to Danamma, wife of Rangappa Setty, a four annas share to Chennappa and another four annas share to Manjunath. At one stage the argument constructed was that this provision for the distribution of profits between Rangappa Setty, his wife and his two sons brought into being a partnership and that, therefore, a partnership came into existence on December 8, 1958. That was also the view whi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... conclusion that the partition deed and the recitals therein did not have the effect of constituting a partnership in respect of the business which was carried on in the shop which fell to the share of Rangappa Setty. Rangappa Setty was the owner of that business and he was under an obligation to pay a portion of the profits to his sons and wife in a certain contingency. But Mr. Srinivasan strenuously contended before us that there was very satisfactory evidence of the partnership having come into existence with effect from December 8, 1958, in a partnership deed which was executed on November 18, 1959. The terms and conditions which that instrument of partnership sets out make it abundantly clear that at least from November 18, 1959, a p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he instrument of partnership that the partnership commenced on December 8, 1958. It is again that mistaken understanding and comprehension of the relevant recitals in the partition deed that was responsible for the provision in clause 2 of the instrument of partnership that the partnership shall be deemed to have come into existence on and with effect from December 8, 1958. Mr. Srinivasan contended that no sufficient investigation was made by any one in these proceedings into the question whether independently of the arrangement recorded in the partition deed for the distribution of profits, a partnership came into existence by some other process. We do not think that this submission is substantial since it is clear from the order of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... relevance to the question whether there was a partnership. A partnership may be formed with the aid of any asset, and even if the shop with the business carried on in it was the self-acquired property of Rangappa Setty and even if that property was allotted to him under the partition deed executed on December 8, 1958, it was possible for Rangappa Setty and his two sons to become partners in respect of that business. It is not necessary for Rangappa Setty to convert his self-acquired property into family property before he could enter into a partnership in respect of that business with his two sons. In that view of the matter, the importance which was given to the question as to whether the properties became properties of a Hindu undivided ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
