9911796707
TMI Blog1984 (3) TMI 93X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the above firm. This amount was neither shown by the assessee in his return in the status of an individual, nor was it included in the original assessment. 2. In the meantime, the Allahabad High Court in the case of Madho Prasad v. CIT [1978] 112 ITR 492 held that under section 64(1)(ii) of the Act, the share of a minor admitted to the benefits of partnership could be assessed in the hands of his father if the latter was also a partner in that firm irrespective of the fact whether he was partner as an individual or as a karta of his joint family. The ITO was of the view that this principle applied to the case of the assessee also, which fell under section 64(1)(i) as substituted by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1975, with effect from ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d, therefore, it was obligatory on the part of the assessee to declare it in the return. About the second contention, he held that the decision of the Allahabad High Court was binding on him and, therefore, he could not take a different view. He finally dismissed the appeal. 4. The assessee is now in appeal before us. The learned counsel for the assessee submitted before us that the assessee was not bound to show the income of his wife in his return in view of the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of V.D.M.RM.M.RM. Muthiah Chettiar v. CIT [1969] 74 ITR 183. On behalf of the department, there were two submissions. The first submission was that the above case of the Supreme Court was distinguishable in view of a later dec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e following the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of V.D.M.RM.M.RM. Muthiah Chettiar, inasmuch as the question of non-declaration of the share of the minor had become academic after the amendment of the form of return since 1-4-1972, which provided a separate column, for showing the income of spouse as referred to in Chapter V. It is, therefore, clear that their Lordships of the Supreme Court while finally deciding the case of Smt. P.K. Kochammu Amma, did not differ from the earlier decision in V.D.M.RM.M.RM. Muthiah Chettiar's case, but that they laid down an additional principle that after 1-4-1972 it was obligatory upon an assessee to declare the income of spouse/minor child as referred to in Chapter V in the return. S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
