TMI Blog1998 (10) TMI 56X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is justified in holding that the income of the minor sons who are admitted to the benefits of the partnership in a firm in which the assessee is also a partner could not be included in the individual assessment of the assessee for the assessment years 1973-74, 1974-75 and 1975-76 ? 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is correct in holding that there was no justification for the Income-tax Officer to assess the income of the assessee and his minor sons in his assessment as an individual under section 148 for the assessment years 1973-74, 1974-75, 1975-76 ? and 4. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essed independently in their own names. The Income-tax Officer, however, later came to a different conclusion that the assets received on October 29, 1970, belonged to the assessee in his individual capacity only as at the relevant time, he and his wife alone were there. Since his wife had been given Rs. 5,000 at the time of partial partition, the assessee is interested in his individual capacity in the share income and not in the status of the family. If he is an individual partner in the firm, the incomes of the minors admitted to the benefits of partnership are also to be aggregated under section 64 for the assessment years 1973-74, 1974-75 and 1975-76. Even otherwise, it had to be aggregated for the assessment years 1976-77 and 1979-80 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of CWT v. Mukundgirji [1983] 144 ITR 18. The question, therefore, is whether on making a provision for maintenance in favour of the wife by the assessee the Hindu undivided family ceases to exist. In CWT v. M. A. R. Raj Kumar [1997] 226 ITR 804, a Full Bench of this court held "the expression 'Hindu undivided family' must be interpreted and understood in the sense in which it is understood in Hindu law even for the purpose of the Wealth-tax Act. The members of the Hindu joint family are bound together by their relationship". From the facts narrated above, it is clear that there was a larger Hindu undivided family and there was a partial partition in so far as the two firms are concerned and the partial partition was recognised by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inciple behind this sub-section is obvious. Once a dependant gets a share in the deceased Hindu's estate, his or her right to get maintenance comes to an end and she cannot have not only a share but also maintenance besides." Similarly, the judgment in Mukund's case [1983] 144 ITR 18 (AP), is also not relevant to the facts of this case. They were considering the case of devolution of property under section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act. In the context of section 8 of the Act, it was held that the property inherited under section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act is an individual property, In the case of N. V. Narendranath v. CWT [1969] 74 ITR 190, the Supreme Court held that "The expression 'Hindu undivided family' in the Wealth-tax Act is u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|