9911796707
TMI Blog1983 (1) TMI 17X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed by a partial partition agreement dated September 7, 1967. This agreement recites that Nemkumar was a partner in the firm Of M/s. Pyarchand Keshrimal Porwal and that the 70% share in the profits and losses belonged to the HUF represented by Nemkumar till Diwali ending 1966. It also recites that it has been agreed among the members orally as from November 13, 1966, that the said share and share income is agreed to be partitioned " among the members of the HUF and each member will have one-seventh share, of which each will be the absolute owner as a result of the partial partition and each member will be free to enjoy the same as per his or her own free will as from November 13, 1966. The agreement contains a declaration that the share in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iew that the agreement of partition created an overriding title in favour of the divided members and that there was no association of persons and, therefore, the divided members had to be assessed individually in respect of their share of the share income. He took the same view in the appeals for the subsequent assessment years 1973-74 and 1974-75 and cancelled the assessments made in the status of an association of persons. When the matter went to the Tribunal in appeals filed by the ITO, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals holding that the ITO had erred in assessing the assessee in the status of an association of persons. All the Departmental appeals for the assessment years in question were, therefore, dismissed by a common order. Ari ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he received income by way of share in the partnership firm, was receiving it not on behalf of any HUF but as a representative of seven persons who, in their own right, were entitled to share of income by virtue of the partition of November 13, 1966. We may usefully refer to our decision in CIT v. M. D. Kanoria [1982] 137 ITR 137 (Bom), where, on similar facts, we have held that the income received by the erstwhile karta of the HUF from the partnership firm in which the karta originally represented the HUF, but where there was subsequent partition among the members of the HUF, is received by him as a representative of the different members of the joint family and that where there is a diversion by overriding title of the income of the oth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
