9911796707
TMI Blog1977 (9) TMI 4X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... status of a Hindu undivided family ? (2) In case the answer to the first question be in the negative, whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in excluding from the total income of the assessee-family the sum of Rs. 26,708 being half of the dividends deemed to have been distributed to the firm of M/s. Banshidhar Durgadutt by operation of section 23A ? " The assessee is an HUF. Its karta was one Durgadutt Bhagat. After his death the name of his widow, Sm. Siksha Devi Bhagat, was substituted as the appellant before the AAC. Durgadutt was a partner in the firm of M/s. Banshidhar Durgadutt having a half share therein. The firm of Banshidhar Durgadutt held a number of shares in two companies, vi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e partners of the firm, it was contended that the assessee was the beneficial owner of the half share of the firm's income inasmuch as Durgadutt was the karta of the family and, therefore, the said amounts should be included, as the assessee's income. The Tribunal rejected that contention on the ground that the deemed income was of a notional character and could not be assessed in the hands of the beneficial partner like the assessee-family and allowed the appeal. Thereafter, at the instance of the Commissioner, the Tribunal referred the aforesaid questions to this court. A Division Bench of this court heard the reference earlier and directed the Tribunal to submit a supplementary statement of the case which has been done under s. 66(4) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... their shares in the total income of the firm, any such partner may appeal to the AAC against any order of an ITO determining the amount of the total income or loss of the firm or an apportionment thereof between the several partners but in respect of matters which are determined by such order no appeal against the assessment of its own total income would lie. In view of the aforesaid findings of the Tribunal, it must be held that the second proviso under s. 30(1) of the Act cannot apply to the assessee-family inasmuch as the assessee-family was not a partner of M/s. Banshidhar Durgadutt. Therefore, the contentions of Mr. Sengupta must fail and we answer question No. 1 in the negative and in favour of the assessee. A partner is entitle ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
