9911796707
TMI Blog1968 (11) TMI 1X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sites in 1919 and constructed houses thereon in 1928. The purchase of the sites was by payment of cash. The Hindu undivided family was also carrying on a money-lending business. The family owned an estate too. The cost of the house properties and the estate was $1,38,000. On April 13, 1951, the house properties and the estate were sold for $2,38,455.50, thus making a profit of $1,00,455.50. On April 12, 1952, there were sales of other properties, by which a profit of $71,460 was made. The Hindu undivided family remained so until 1940, when it got divided ; but the divided members with the shares allotted to them constituted a firm of partnership. It commenced business from that year and did extensive money-lending, making a large income. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uch a question, if it reasonably followed the cumulative effect of the facts found. But we think that in the instant case this test is not satisfied. It is well settled, as we have pointed out in prior cases, that what a member of a Hindu undivided family gets as for his share of the joint properties is capital in his hands, notwithstanding its erstwhile character in the hands of the Hindu undivided family. To start with, therefore, the immovable properties that came into the hands of the divided members in 1940 were capital in character. But, all those members joined together in forming a firm of partnership. It does not appear that each of them had a separate business. In such circumstances, the Tribunal should have looked for facts whic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hettiar v. Commissioner of Income-tax. But, we think, that it has no application to the facts of this case. In that case, there was conduct on the part of the assessee concerned, which clearly showed that the property was treated as part of the stock-in-trade. The conduct consisted in this : the sale proceeds were actually utilised in the money-lending business like the income from the properties before their sale. There was also the further fact that loss resulting from the sale of properties was treated as business loss. That is not the case here. It is also urged for the revenue that on a mixed question of fact and law, this court should not upset the Tribunal's conclusion, unless we consider that it is unreasonable. But keeping it in fu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
