9911796707
TMI Blog1974 (2) TMI 10X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e wife did not join as a partner. Thereafter the only partners were Bajrang Lal and his two major sons, the two minor sons were admitted to the benefits of the partnership. With regard to the rest of the assets, the original Hindu undivided family continued. In his individual assessment, Bajrang Lal claimed that the share which he received on partition was liable to be assessed in his hands in the status of a Hindu undivided family consisting of himself, his widowed mother and unmarried daughter. The Income-tax Officer, however, held that Bajrang Lal was liable to be assessed in the status of an individual. This view was affirmed on appeal. Bajrang Lal, the assessee, took the dispute to the Tribunal. The Tribunal held that in view of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mal presumption would be that the family as claimed had no potentiality to add a coparcener. The Tribunal observed that if they had been persuaded to accept that the family was capable to add a member to the family, they would have allowed the assessee's appeals. On this view it was held that the assessee cannot be given the status of a Hindu undivided family. At the instance of the assessee the Tribunal has referred to this court the following questions : " 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee was not entitled to the status of Hindu undivided family for the assessment years 1959-60 and 1960-61? 2. If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o the Tribunal at that time. So he made enquiries and filed an affidavit giving the ages of the respective members of the family on 27th October, 1969. It appears that on that very day the Tribunal announced its judgement. It is possible that the affidavit did not reach the members of the Tribunal on that day. In any event, we are not satisfied that it is quite correct to say that the assessee was reluctant to furnish the requisite information so that an adverse inference could be drawn from his conduct. Moreover, there is no basis whatever for the view taken by the Tribunal that during the material period the assessee's youngest child was the unmarried daughter, aged 13. No one has stated that, and there is no other material from which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... kinandan, on behalf of the department, urged that the view of the Tribunal that the asseseee could validly constitute a family as known to Hindu law along with his widowed mother and unmarried daughter was erroneous. We are, however, unable to permit the department to challenge this finding. It was a finding on an independent question. It was open to the department to have challenged this finding by asking for a question to be referred upon it. That was not done. In the second place, the Tribunal has held that the position that the assessee constituted a valid family along with his mother and daughter was admitted before it. The Tribunal has observed that the first condition is admittedly satisfied. If the department wished to challenge thi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
