9911796707
TMI Blog1980 (9) TMI 19X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. 18,753 in the accounting period relevant to the assessment year 1965-66. This amount was added to the applicant's individual income by operation of s. 64(ii) of the I.T. Act, 1961. The Tribunal's order dated 23rd December, 1970, gives the reasons for this. For this year, the question " Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the share income from the firm of M/s. Prayag Dass Rajgarhia Company arising to the assessee's four minor daughters is includible in the total income of the assessee under s. 64(ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ? " has been referred to us. The other three cases which have been heard along with this case are the cases of Shri Kanhaya Lal Rajgarhia who was also the karta of the HUF. He became a p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the income of the individual minors who were admitted to the benefits of the partnership are not to be included in the individual income of their father because the father in the cases in question became a partner only as a representative of the HUF and not on his own account. We would have examined these reasons in greater detail, but we find that there are already four reported decisions covering the same point. In Madho Prasad, Pilibhit v. CIT [1978] 112 ITR 492, the Allahabad High Court held that although the partner who was the karta of an HUF represented that family in the partnership, since only an individual could be a partner, for the purpose of applying s. 64 of the Act it must be held that that karta was an individual who was a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or the purposes of s. 64(1)(ii) of the I.T. Act, 1961. We are in complete agreement with the views expressed in these three judgments and need not express ourselves further in the matter. We would accordingly answer the questions referred to us in favour of the assessee and against the Department. In the case of Shri Prayag Dass Rajgarhia, I.T.R. No. 73 of 1971, we would answer the question in the negative and say that the share income is not to be included in the total income of the assessee. In the case of Shri Kanhaya Lal Rajgarhia, ITR Nos. 219 to 221 of 1976, also we would answer the question in the negative and say that the share of profits of the minor children from the various firms in which the assessee was partner representing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
