1943 (3) TMI 18 - HC - Income Tax

Money-lending businesses assessed separately from joint Hindu family by Tribunal; valid gifts, no tax evasion.

Commissioner of Income-tax Versus Mohanmal Chordia

Commissioner of Income-tax Versus Mohanmal Chordia - [1943] 11 ITR 352 (MAD.) Issues:Assessment of money-lending businesses as joint Hindu family income or separate businesses.Analysis:The case involves the assessment of four money-lending businesses either as the businesses of a joint Hindu family or as separate entities. The Commissioner of Income-tax contended that these businesses should be treated as the businesses of a joint Hindu family, while the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Calcutta Bench, held that they are separate businesses and should be assessed accordingly. The primary business is under the name of Sha Agarchand Manmul, with three other businesses under different styles. The key question posed was whether the income of the businesses in the names of the sons and wife of the respondent should be assessed as the income of a Hindu undivided family.The historical background of the family from 1891 onwards was crucial in determining the ownership and succession of the businesses. The lineage involved the death of Sha Agarchand in 1891, subsequent adoptions, and transfers of business assets over the years. The Tribunal examined the succession of ownership and concluded that the businesses were genuinely separate entities, not parts of a joint family business. The Tribunal's findings emphasized that the gifts made by family members were bona fide transactions and had been accepted as valid by the family members, including the main person concerned, Mohanmull.The Tribunal's decision was based on the acceptance and validity of the gifts within the family, dismissing the Income-tax Officer's claim of evasion of taxation through subsidiary businesses. The Tribunal highlighted that the actions of the family members were in accordance with the gifts made by predecessors and not aimed at tax evasion. The Tribunal's role as the final arbiter on factual matters was crucial in determining that the separate assessments of the businesses were correct up to the assessment year 1938-39. Consequently, the Tribunal ruled against the Commissioner of Income-tax, stating that the businesses in question were genuine and not part of a joint family business, leading to a negative response to the posed question.