9911796707
TMI Blog1982 (9) TMI 77X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 15 percent 3. K. P. Singh (HUF) 12 1/2 per cent 2. Smt. Sushila Singh 4. H. N. Singh (Ind.) 17 1/2 per cent (Ind.) 20 per cent 5. Nand Kumar Singh 3. Shri Shailendra K. (Ind.) 15 per cent Singh (Ind.) 20 per cent 6. Sanjeev K. Singh 4. Shri Rajeev Kumar (Ind.) 10 per cent Singh (Ind.) 10 per cent 7. Smt. Suhasini Singh 5. Shri Manoj Kumar (Ind.) 15 per cent Singh (Ind.) 10 per cent 6. Shri B.P. Singh (Ind.) 25 per cent From the above, it would be seen that Shri B. P. Singh is a partner in Heer Palace in a representative capacity representing his HUF. In this very firm, his wife Smt. Suhasini Singh is also a partner. Shri B. P. Singh, the assessee, is also a partner in Rupam Theatre. In this firm he is a partner in his in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s arises directly or indirectly to a minor child of such individual from the admission of the minor to the benefits of partnership in a firm in which such individual is a partner ; . . ." Although there has been an amendment to the section, but it appears that there is no amendment to clause, (i) of section 64(1), which reads that "In computing the total income of any individual, there shall be included all such income as arises directly or indirectly to the spouse of such individual from the membership of the spouse in a firm carrying on a business in which individual is a partner." The words 'in which such individual is a partner' appears both in clauses (i) and (ii) before the amendment of the section. The case of the ITO, therefore, was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... section 64 had no application. Similar view, according to the learned counsel for the assessee, had been taken by the Gujarat High Court in the case of Dinubhai Ishvarlal Patel v. K. D. Dixit [1979] 118 ITR 122. In this case, the principle in Madho Prasad's case was dissented from. He also referred to another decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court CIT v. Anand Sarup in [1979] 6 TLR 32, which also according to him, took a view different from that of the Allahabad High Court. The learned counsel for the assessee submitted before us that in the light of these different views it had to be admitted that there were two opinions on the same issue and, therefore, it could not be treated as a mistake apparent from the record. To support his ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the share of his wife from Heer Palace and that ground could not be made the subject for challenging the order under section 154. His final submission was that merely because no such action was taken for other years, that could not estop the ITO from rectifying the assessment for the assessment year under appeal. 9. We have carefully considered the submissions placed before us. We are inclined to agree with the submissions of the learned departmental representative. It is no doubt correct that some other High Courts have not agreed with the view taken by the Allahabad High Court in the case of Madho Prasad. However, there will still be a mistake falling within the scope of section 154 in the light of the principle laid down by the Allaha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
