9911796707
TMI Blog1985 (9) TMI 19X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bhrajmal, Beawar, which is Hindu undivided family and the assessments pertain to the assessment years 1968-69 to 1972-73 and 1974-75. A partnership firm, M/s. Murlidhar and Company, was constituted by a deed of partnership dated September 9, 1966, in which the Hindu undivided family, M/s. Chanchaldas Sobhrajmal, entered as a partner through its karta, Shri Mirchumal. Three other partners of M/s. Murlidhar and Company, namely, Laxmandas, Udhavdas and Kanhaiyalal, were also coparceners of the assessee family. Two other coparceners of the assessee family, Baldeodas and Devidas, minor sons of Chanchaldas, were admitted to benefits of the partnership, while another minor partner of the firm Vasumal was an outsider. In the subsequent years, Laxma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... partners, while the minor coparceners were merely admitted to the benefits of the partnership. It was also noticed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner while deciding the appeals that the partnership deed showed that there was no stipulation that the minors would contribute any capital. On the basis of these facts, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner came to the conclusion that the share income of the minors could not be included in the total income of the Hindu undivided family in all the aforesaid assessment years. The Revenue filed appeals before the Tribunal in respect of all the assessment years. Five appeals relating to the assessment years 1968-69 to 1972-73 were decided by the Tribunal by a common order dated September 29, 197 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fits could not be included in the assessment of the assessee family. In the appeal arising out of the assessment relating to the subsequent assessment year 1974-75, the Tribunal followed its earlier decision referred to above and dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue, vide its order dated August 22, 1980. In respect of the six assessment years mentioned above, the Commissioner of Income-tax, Jaipur, filed reference applications under section 256(1) of the Act before the Tribunal. Five applications pertaining to the assessment years 1968-69 to 1972-73 were disposed of by the Tribunal by its order dated March 31, 1980, while the reference application relating to the year 1974-75 was decided by the order of the Tribunal dated March 31, 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ned counsel for the Revenue. The Tribunal has found as a fact that the assessee-Hindu undivided family has entered into the partnership as represented by the karta and the major coparceners joined the partnership firm as partners in their individual capacity and were referred to as working partners in the partnership deed. The minor coparceners were admitted to the benefits of the partnership in accordance with the provisions of section 30 of the Partnership Act with the consent of all the partners and there was nothing to suggest that the minor coparceners were admitted to the benefits of the partnership on account of the fact that the assessee-Hindu undivided family had invested capital in the partnership firm. The Tribunal also found as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
