9911796707
TMI Blog1991 (7) TMI 122X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... HUF of Shri Jyotindrakumar Hematlal. 2. In ITA No. 2901(Ahd)/1984, the assessment year involved is 1979-80, for which the previous year ended with S.Y. 2034. The status of the assessee is shown as resident/individual. The Assessing Officer has observed that, "for the reasons given in the assessment order in the case of the smaller HUF, passed separately, the income is to be included in the case of the individual". The learned first appellate authority held that there being no valid partition, the finding of the Assessing Officer merits no interference, but at the same time, he held that income added by the ITO in the case of the assessee- individual is to be added in the hands of the bigger HUF— Hematlal Liladhar and sons. Deleting the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e previous year ended with S.Y. 2035. The status of the assessee is resident/individual. The Assessing Officer has held that, "for the reasons given in the assessment order in the case of smaller HUF passed separately, the income is to be included in the case of the individual and, therefore, it shall be included in the case of the assessee here." 4.1 The learned first appellate authority deleted the addition with direction to the Assessing Officer to take necessary action to assess the income in the hands of the bigger HUF. 5. On our part, we have heard the parties at length. We have also gone through the orders of the ITAT, Ahmedabad Bench 'A' 'B' respectively, the photostat copies of which have been filed with us and which orders ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at of a son. This position holds good in the entire country except in Southern India. 8.2 Under paragraph 322, a partition has been defined according to the Hindu Law as, "partition, according to that law, consists in a numerical division of the property; in other words, it consists in defining the shares of the coparceners in the joint property. 8.3 Under paragraph 217 of the same law, "no female can be a coparcener under the Mitakshara law. Even a wife, though she is entitled to maintenance out of her husband's property and has to that extent an interest in his property, is not her husband's coparcener". 8.4 Under paragraph 213 of the said law, "a Hindu coparcenary is a much narrower body than the joint family. It includes only t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
