9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (12) TMI 33X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e. They arise out of the order of the Tribunal for the assessment years 1972-73, 1973-74, 1974-75, 1975-76 and 1976-77. The assessee as a karta of his Hindu undivided family, is a partner in the firm of Karuppiah Nadar. His minor sons had been admitted to the benefits of the partnership. For these assessment years, the assessee did not file any return of his income in his individual capacity on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ovide for including the income of the minor children in the income of the parent unless the parent was a partner in the firm. That submission for the assessee must be accepted as section 64 as it stood prior to its amendment on April 1, 1976, did not permit the inclusion of the minor children's income from the firm in the income of the parent unless, the parent was a partner. Admittedly, the asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d would not have the effect of condoning the parent's failure to file the return. The reopening for the assessment year 1976-77 was justified. So far as the second question is concerned, it is now settled by the decision of this court in the case of CIT v. P. Alwarsamy [1995] 211 ITR 353, that even in cases where the parent has no independent source of income he is required to file a return show ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
