9911796707
TMI Blog1978 (3) TMI 121X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot of the HUF consisting of himself, his wife and three sons. On 10th April, 1965 he again threw Rs. 20,000 in cash in the hotchpot of the HUF. Thereafter the firm M/s. K.P. Dyeing Co. was reconstituted on 10th April, 1965 on the strength of a partnership deed executed on the same date. A copy whereof was filed in the paper book. In the reconstituted firm Sri Kishorilal became a partner as karta in his capacity as a HUF and not as individual. This was subsequently mentioned in the partnership deed. But Sri Kishorilal also threw his share of profit in the firm in the common hotchpot of the family. The ITO after examining the facts of the case allowed the registration to the reconstituted firm and assessed the share of profit in the hands o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... todia in his capacity as individual. 3. Aggrieved by this order the assessee filed the instant appeal before the Tribunal. The learned representative for the assessee reiterated the facts mentioned above and submitted the firm in which Sri Kishorilal Patodia was partner in his individual capacity was reconstituted as per deed dt. 10th April, 1965. Prior to that Sri Kishorilal Patodia threw Rs. 1,000 in cash on 3rd March, 1965 and Rs. 20,000 on 10th April, 1965 in the common hotchpot of the HUF. He also threw his share of profit in the firm in the common hotchpot of the family. Thus all the formalities necessary for throwing the capital and share into the hotchpot of the HUF were fulfilled. In such a case the ITO was justified in assessin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er, observed that the share of profit is an actionable claim and it cannot be thrown into the common hotchpot by a simple declaration. In our opinion, however, the share of profit is also a property though in the form of actionable claim and as such it can be thrown into the common hotchpot of the family. But even if it is ignored there is not the slightest doubt that Sri Kishorilal Patodia had thrown Rs. 21,000 in cash into the common hotchpot of the HUF. This amount was introduced as capital when the firm was reconstituted on 10th April, 1965. There could be no dispute with regard to the throwing away of Rs. 21,000 by Sri Kishorilal Patodia. There is no dispute with regard to the genuineness of the firm and Sri Kishorilal Patodia had beco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
