9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (4) TMI 285X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t of the same judgment of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal and, hence they have been heard together and disposed of by this common judgment. 2. "Sumitra Sadan", a large building, situated in the city of Patna has a large rental income. The said rental income is shared by eight persons. Each of them, used to submit his income-tax returns showing himself as part owner of the said building and in relation to his share in such rental income. One of those eight owners, Sumitra Devi, filed such returns which were accepted without scrutiny for the assessment years 1991-92 to 1996-97. The return of Sumitra Devi for the assessment year 1997-98 was scrutinized, when it was accepted that the part rental income of the said building is of Sumitra D ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f undivided Hindu family, the members of the family obtained specific share in the properties belonging to the joint family and those had been specified in the said deed of family arrangement. It is the contention of the appellant that the Assessing Officer, the Appellate Commissioner as well as the Tribunal incorrectly applied the provisions of section 171 of the Income-tax Act while holding that there has not been a complete partition. Section 171 of the Income-tax Act makes it clear that the provisions of the said section would apply only when a Hindu undivided family is already an assessee. Unless it is an assessee, the provisions of section 171 of the Income-tax Act will not apply to a Hindu undivided family even for the purpose of Inc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , registered. In that Shri Singh described himself as the father of his sons and karta of joint family, comprising of himself, his wife and his major sons. His minor sons also had been represented by Sri Bengali Singh as their father and natural guardian in the said deed. 5. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that under the partition of April, 1989, some of the sons of Shri Bengali Singh obtained exclusive share in properties situated at Danapur, but not anything in "Sumitra Sadan". It was contended that in such situation, citation of Bengali Singh as karta of the joint family of himself, his wife and his major sons in the said deed will not establish that the partition of April 1989 did not take effect. Fact ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
