9911796707
TMI Blog1970 (3) TMI 20X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tro constituted a partnership business. They carried on business from 1948-49 onwards. It had been granted registration under, the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, upto and including the assessment year 1959-60. Judhistir Patro was a partner in this firm representing a Hindu undivided family consisting of himself and his sons. On January 6, 1959, there was a partition in the family and the share of Judhistir Patro in the firm was allotted to his minor son, Budhibaman Patro. The partition was effected by a registered deed and was given effect to under section 25A of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. From January 6, 1959, Budhibaman Patro was shown as a partner in the books of the firm and the capital standing to the credit of his father was credi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ficer having come to the conclusion that the promissory note was ante-dated and was not in existence on September 30, 1959, held that the entire arrangement creating a new partnership was a subterfuge for evasion of tax. The petitioner carried the matter in appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax who confirmed the finding of the Income-tax Officer. The matter then came up before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal at the instance of the petitioner. The Tribunal did not examine the facts assailing the finding that the partnership was a subterfuge, but proceeded on the assumption that, even if the promissory note was genuine, it was void as a minor was a contracting party to the note. Accordingly, it dismissed the appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... point. In the context of the aforesaid legal position, the view of the Tribunal, in the balanced form in which it is put, cannot be supported. The Tribunal has not examined the question whether the execution of the promissory note by the father in favour of the minor was beneficial to the interest of the minor. In that connection, the Tribunal ought also to have examined what was the interest of the minor in the assets of the partnership. If, for instance, the assets of the partnership firm on September 30, 1959, were more than Rs. 5,000 at which it was valued and in respect of which the promissory note was executed, then obviously the promissory note is not beneficial to the interest of the minor. In the absence of findings on these quest ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
