Punjab & Haryana H.C : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal erred in law in holding that the share of the assessee’s minor daughter from the firm in which he was a partner in his representative capacity as Karta of his HUF could not be included in his total income under s. 64(1) (ii) of the IT Act, 1961 ?

High Court Of Punjab & Haryana

CIT vs. Harbhagwan

Section 64(1)(ii)

Gokal Chand Mital & S.S. Sodhi, JJ.

IT Ref. No. 150 of 1980

16th November, 1988

Counsel Appeared

Ashok Bhan with Ajay Mittal, for the Revenue : Ramesh Goyal, for the Assessee

GOKAL CHAND MITAL, J.:

Two questions have been referred at the instance of the Revenue and one question has been referred at the instance of the assessee for the opinion of this Court. Question No. 2 referred at the instance of the Revenue and the sole question referred at the instance of the assessee are overed by our decision in IT Ref. No. 149 of 1980 [CIT vs. Ravinder Kumar (1989) 180 ITR 203 (P&H)], rendered today. For the reasons recorded therein, both these questions are answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.

2. Now, we are left with question No. 1, referred at the instance of the Revenue. The question is as follows :

“Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal erred in law in holding that the share of the assessee’s minor daughter from the firm in which he was a partner in his representative capacity as Karta of his HUF could not be included in his total income under s. 64(1) (ii) of the IT Act, 1961 ? “

3. Precisely this very point came up for consideration before this Court earlier in CIT vs. Anand Sarup (1980) 14 CTR (P&H) 95 : (1980) 121 ITR 873 (P&H), and the question was answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue to the effect that the Tribunal was right in not including the share of the assessee’s wife in the firm in which he was a partner in his representative capacity as Karta of his HUF, under s. 64(1)(ii) of the IT Act, 1961 (for short ” the Act “). It was pointed out on behalf of the Revenue that a special leave petition has been granted against the decision in Anand Sarup’s case (supra). If that is so, the Revenue may take this case also to the Supreme Court. However, we are bound by the judgment in Anand Sarup’s case (supra). Accordingly, we answer the question in favour of the assessee, that is, in the negative, with no order as to costs.

[Citation :180 ITR 206]

Malcare WordPress Security