9911796707
TMI Blog1988 (7) TMI 10X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which was paid to the karta by way of annual salary in pursuance of an agreement between the karta and the other members of the family. The deduction was disallowed by the assessing authority. His order was reversed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner but restored by the Tribunal holding that the female members of the family have no right in the property or income of the Hindu undivided family and that the agreement entered into was void, being without consideration and, as such, the assessee was not entitled to the deduction of the said amount alleged to have been paid by way of salary to the karta. However, on the application of the assessee, the Tribunal referred the following three questions for the opinion of this court : "(1) Wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... only one male member, he has the absolute right of management and disposal of the property and its income. The agreement entered into by the female members with the karta was, therefore, not only without jurisdiction but also without any authority. Questions Nos. (1) and (2), therefore, have to be answered in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. In spite of the answers to questions Nos. (1) and (2) in the affirmative, learned counsel for the assessee, relying on the Supreme Court judgment in Jugal Kishore Baldeo Sahai v. CIT [1967] 63 ITR 238 and judgment of the Madras High Court in CIT v. Annamalai (S. A. P.) [1970] 75 ITR 109, contended that the amount paid to the karta for his services in the manage ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 75 ITR 109 (Mad), the learned judges constituting the Bench wrongly observed that the Jugal Kishore's case [1967] 63 ITR 238 (SC), related to the payment of remuneration to karta. As noticed above, in fact, in Jugal Kishore's case [1967] 63 ITR 238 (SC), it was the karta who agreed to pay remuneration to a junior member of the family. It was because of this misconception that the Bench, following Jugal Kishore's case [1967] 63 ITR 238 (SC), held that remuneration paid to the karta of a Hindu undivided family, even in the absence of any agreement, would be an allowable deduction. No other case has been brought to our notice holding that a karta would be entitled to any remuneration for his services rendered to the Hindu undivided family in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
