9911796707
TMI Blog1988 (9) TMI 33X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ence under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Indore Bench, Indore, has referred the following questions of law to this court for its opinion : "(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the liability determined under section 132(5) of the Income-tax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , the assessee made a claim that on March 31, 1978, there was a total partition in the family and the property of the joint family was divided amongst the coparceners, Kanhaiyalal, Badrilal, Jugdishchandra and Smt. Gitabai. After making an enquiry as required by section 171 of the Act, the Income-tax Officer rejected the claim of the assessee that there was a partition in the family. Aggrieved by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... partition. In reply, it was contended on behalf of the Revenue that after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal had come to the conclusion that there was no partition of the joint family and that the reference, therefore, deserved to be answered against the assessee. Now, so far as the first question is concerned, it was not disputed before us on behalf ..... X 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, was found to be untenable by the Income-tax Officer and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and that finding has been upheld by the Tribunal. In our opinion, therefore, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that there was no partition of the joint family. For all these reasons, our answer to both ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
