9911796707
TMI Blog1985 (7) TMI 59X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n Lal, as karta of his Hindu undivided family, was a partner in a number of firms. On November 1, 1963, he entered into an agreement of sub-partnership with his son, Suresh Kumar, a coparcener in the Hindu undivided family, to share profits derived from the firm, Messrs. Brij Bhushan Lal Romesh Kumar. Prior thereto, the income from the said firm was being assessed in the hands of Brij Bhushan Lal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... after considering the reply submitted by the assessee, cancelled the registration. The order having been affirmed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, the assessee went in second appeal before the Tribunal who reversed the same and restored the registration of the sub-partnership. An application filed by the Revenue under section 256(1) of the Act was also dismissed which led to the filing of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mily to enter into partnership with a coparcener of his own family ? " The Tribunal held that the proposition, subject-matter of question No. 3, stood concluded by a decision of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Sir Hukumchand Mannalal and Co. [1970] 78 ITR 18 and declined the reference of questions Nos. 1 and 2, observing that the same were only consequential to question No. 3. A perusal of the said S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... undivided family assets. At this stage, it is not necessary for us to enter into an elaborate discussion on this question but the fact remains that questions Nos. 1 and 3 are questions of law which do arise from the order of the Tribunal. As it gave no finding that before cancelling the registration for the year 1965-66, it was necessary to cancel the registration for the year 1964-65, question N ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
