9911796707
TMI Blog1974 (9) TMI 15X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was a partner in Messrs. Sheo Behari Avasthi and Company along with his wife Smt. Kalawati Devi and another person. He had a 6 annas share while his wife, Smt. Kalawati Devi, had a four annas share. He died on 13th March, 1952 Soon after, on 2nd April, 1952, the partners of the firm executed a fresh partnership deed under which Smt. Kalawati became the owner of 10 annas share. Though Sheo Behari Avasthi had left a minor son, no share was granted to him by this partnership deed. It appears that another son was born to Smt. Kalawati Devi some time after the death of Sheo Behari Avasthi, but even after that event no share was given to the minor sons. From 1952 to 1956 the share income representing 10 annas share in relation to the firm was be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to him, which was a self-acquired property, was inherited by his two sons by succession as tenants-in-common. In 1956 the capital, which had originally been invested by the father, was partitioned between his two sons and the two sons were admitted to the benefits of the partnership in their individual capacity. The plea that they were admitted to the benefits of the partnership as representatives of their joint Hindu family was repelled. Since they were held to have been admitted to the benefits of the partnership as individuals their income was liable to be added to that of their mother. At the instance of the assessee the Tribunal has referred the question of law mentioned above for the opinion of this court. Assuming for the sake of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... between the two sons in or about the year 1956, we are unable to agree with the learned counsel for the assessee that the finding of the Tribunal suffers from any error of law. The finding is based on relevant material. On this finding of fact there can be no manner of doubt that the share income pertaining to 19 p. share belonging to each of the two sons was their individual income. It cannot possibly be the income of any joint Hindu family. It being their individual income, it was liable to be added to the income of their mother under section 64(2) of the Income-tax Act. The Tribunal was justified in upholding this action of the Income-tax Officer. Our answer to the question referred to us is in the affirmative, in favour of the depart ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
