9911796707
TMI Blog1954 (11) TMI 46X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d that each of the four Kapoor brothers would have two and a half annas share in the profits and losses of the partnership business. The two Dalmia brothers were granted three annas share each and there was a term in the deed of partnership that the four Kapoor brothers would furnish the skill, labour and goodwill for the partnership business and the two Dalmia brothers would furnish the funds for carrying on the work. The partnership lasted from June, 1942, till March, 1947. The account of the partnership showed that each of the Kapoor brothers and each of the Dalmia brothers was credited with respective shares of the profit. The profits were credited to the personal account of the partners in the books of the partnership. It also appears ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al was partially allowed by the Tribunal who took the view that the income of the eldest brother Mr. D.D. Kapoor should be treated as income of a Hindu undivided family but the income of the three other Kapoor brothers was not income of a Hindu undivided family but was individual income. The Tribunal reached this view because the Tribunal found upon examining the family accounts that the amounts withdrawn by Mr. D.D. Kapoor from the partnership business were credited to the family accounts and treated as family income. As regards the share of income due to the other three Kapoor brothers the Tribunal found upon examination of the account books that the other three brothers had utilised their shares of income for their own purposes and no pa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . K.L.S.V.E. Subramanian Chetty A.I.R. 1929 P.C. 1. In the present case the instrument of partnership definitely shows that each of the four Kapoor brothers was granted two annas six pies share of the partnership business. The document itself does not expressly state that the Hindu undivided family as such had entered. into the partnership business. The only ground given by the Tribunal to support their view is that the income of two annas six pies share of Mr. D.D. Kapoor in the partnership business was credited in the joint family accounts. We do not think that this circumstance is in the eye of law any reason for holding that the income of Mr. D.D. Kapoor should be treated as the income of the Hindu undivided family for being taxed. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... family funds. In order to prove the blending of the income with the joint family income it is not sufficient for the department merely to show that there was a physical mixing. In addition, there must be some material to indicate that there was an intention on the part of Mr. D.D. Kapoor to abandon his ownership of the income and to vest the ownership in the joint family. In the present case no such material has been produced on behalf of the department. In our opinion the Tribunal has committed an error of law in holding that the two annas six pies share of the income of Mr. D.D. Kapoor derived from the partnership business was the income of the Hindu undivided family and taxable in its hands. The view that we have taken is borne out by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
