9911796707
TMI Blog1934 (10) TMI 10X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under Section 25-A of the Income Tax Act; and 2. Whether the finding of the Income Tax Officer, that the money deposited with the assessee did not belong to certain ladies in whose names it stood deposited is supported by any evidence. The learned Commissioner has accordingly drawn up a statement of the case and referred the two question for decision to this Court together with his opinion thereon. The facts as stated by him are that the said firm, which has been assessed for some time as a Hindu undivided family, applied for assessment as a partnership on the ground that the family had disrupted and shares had been assigned in the business to the two brothers who are joint owners of the said firm. It was admitted, however, that the pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd bounds. According to that section if the Income Tax satisfied that a separation of the members of the family has taken place and that the joint family property has been partitioned among the various members or groups of members in definite portions, he should record an order to that effect. It is clear, therefore, to my mind that as contemplated by the Act there should be firstly a finding by the Income Tax Commissioner that the Hindu joint family as such has disrupted and secondly a finding that the joint family property has been divided among the various members or groups of members in definite portions. The dispute in the case centres on the meaning to be attached to the words partitioned in definite portions. The Income Tax Commissi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be compelled to split into its individual components and then reunite again before the terms of the section could be satisfied again before the terms of the section could be satisfied when it is admitted that the Income Tax Act recognises other co-owners of property. Secondly, one of the properties owned by a Hindu joint family, as is well known, may be a trading business as in this case. It is difficult to see how this business could be partitioned by metes and bounds or that anything more could be done to it except to ascertain the shares. No particular object could be served by demanding partition by metes and bounds in a business, for all that would be necessary would be to make a book entry separating the capital and separating the ou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... various members. In the last case the property is separately owned and separately possessed by the various members. In the second case the property is separately owned and the share are ascertained but they may be jointly possessed by the different members, who are no longer jointly possessed by the different members, who are no longer joint tenants but tenants in common of the property. Such a partition would however in my opinion satisfy the requirement of Section 25-A of the Income Tax Act. I would, therefore, answer the first question in the negative. As the parties have partially succeeded I would leave them to bear their own costs. JAI LAL, J. - I agree with the Judgment just pronounced by my learned bother. SKEMP, J. - I agree. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
