9911796707
TMI Blog1987 (7) TMI 27X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... " For the purpose of answering the aforesaid question, it may be pointed out that the assessees are Ramji Narayan Patel and Ratansi Narayan Patel. The relevant assessment year is 1976-77. The facts in nutshell which are necessary to be taken notice of for answering the aforesaid question and are clear from a perusal of the appellate order passed by the Tribunal, its order dated April 7, 1982, passed on an application for correction of certain mistake in paragraph 2 of the aforesaid order and the statement of the case drawn up by the Tribunal are that, to start with, there was a partnership in the name of Ramji Narayan Patel Co. constituted on November 3, 1967. This firm, consequent upon the death of one of the partners, was reconstitut ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has been referred to this court for its opinion. On a perusal of the various deeds of partnership which have been placed before us from the record, it appears that right from November 3, 1967, the present assessees, namely, Ramji Narayan and Ratansi Narayan, had continuously held a share of a minimum of 25 per cent. each in the assets of the various partnerships. On this basis, it was asserted on their behalf that on the date of execution of the sale deed dated July 8, 1975, on the basis of which capital gains accrued to the assessees, the assets at any rate to the extent of 25 per cent. each held by the assessees continuously from November 3, 1967, were assets held by them for more than 60 months and, consequently, the capital gains shou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is basis, the Tribunal took the view that it was for the first time when the firm, Ramji Narayan Patel Co., was dissolved and the assets and properties of the firm were allotted to Ramji Narayan and Ratansi Narayan on November 6, 1972, that these assessees can be held to be the owners of the assets. According to the Tribunal, prior to that date, they could not be held to be the owners of the assets and the assets held by them cannot be long-term capital assets as they were not held for a period of more than 60 months. The decision of the Supreme Court in Addanki Narayanappa's case, AIR 1966 SC 1300, was cited before a Division Bench of this court in Narsibhai Patel v. CWT [1981] 127 ITR 633, in connection with the interpretation of sectio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cannot be without any owner. Such a property really vests in the partners collectively in proportion to their shares although the right of ownership of each partner in respect of that property is restricted by the contract of partnership and the very nature and character of the collective business called the partnership business for which the property is to be utilised. We, therefore, find no difficulty in holding that deposits made by a partnership in a bank are in law held by partners in proportion to their shares in the partnership and that the partners are entitled to the benefit of the exemption contained in section 5(1)(xxvi) in their individual assessments to the extent of the maximum prescribed by section 5(1 A)." Applying the pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
