9911796707
TMI Blog1991 (6) TMI 28X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lowing question for the opinion of this court : "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the share income of Talu Ram from Ganesh Factory should be assessed in the hands of Talu Ram, HUF and not Talu Ram, individual ?" The aforesaid question arises from the following facts : Prior to April 1, 1960, there was a Hindu undivided ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... two sons were allotted one-fourth share in the partial partition. The Hindu undivided family's share in the building and machinery was kept joint. The dispute has arisen with regard to one-fourth share allotted to Talu Ram in the partial partition effected on October 1, 1966, as to whether it has to be considered as belonging to him in his individual capacity or to the smaller Hindu undivided f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stion of law has been referred. On a consideration of the matter, we are of the view that the facts of the case are identical with the facts of CIT v. K. Satyanarayan Murty [1984] 147 ITR 140, a decision of the Division Bench of the Orissa High Court. The following dictum was laid down by the Hon'ble R. N. Misra C.J. (the present Chief justice of India) (at page 147) : "In the instant case, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , grandsons and great grandsons, the share allotted to his sons may be considered to belong to their Hindu undivided family. In this case, on October 1, 1966, there was a partial partition of the assets in a business by the father of Talu Ram and his two sons and the share which came to Talu Ram was rightly considered as belonging to Talu Ram's Hindu undivided family. But, once Talu Ram effected a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... other decision of the Orissa High Court. We have gone through the judgment. The facts are distinguishable. Moreover, in this judgment the earlier decision was not considered. For the reasons recorded above, we answer the referred question in the negative, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. The Tribunal was not right in holding that the share income of Talu Ram from Ganesh Factory ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
