Court affirms Tribunal's decision on income exclusion for HUF, upholding valid diversion.

The court upheld the Tribunal's decision to exclude the deceased assessee's share income from individual assessment, accepting that it was diverted to the Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) through a valid declaration. The court dismissed the Revenue's argument that no change in the firm's books invalidated the diversion, emphasizing that a partnership contract does not affect partners' rights outside the firm. A new argument regarding the treatment of capital account balance and share as HUF property was deemed untimely. The court ruled in favor of the assessee, with no costs awarded due to the assessee's absence during the hearing.

---

---

Issues:
Assessment of share income from a partnership firm in individual capacity.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to the assessment year 1969-70, where the deceased assessee was a partner in a firm and had previously been taxed on his share income. However, the assessee declared on oath that he had impressed his share in the firm with the character of joint family property. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) rejected this claim, but the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal accepted it, leading to the current reference. The Tribunal found that the assessee had voluntarily diverted his share income to the Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) through a written declaration, effectively excluding it from his individual assessment.

The Tribunal highlighted that the assessee's conduct post-declaration supported the genuineness of the transaction, as evidenced by the information provided to the ITO and the note in the income tax return. The Tribunal rightly dismissed the Revenue's argument that no change in the firm's books invalidated the diversion, emphasizing that a partnership contract does not alter the rights of partners outside the firm. The judgment clarifies that the partnership firm's account could not be legally altered to reflect the diversion to the HUF.

A new argument was raised during the hearing, suggesting that both the capital account balance and the share in the firm needed to be treated as HUF property for the diversion to be valid. However, the court deemed this argument untimely as it was not presented before the Tribunal. The court also noted the lack of evidence supporting the capital contribution claim, further strengthening the Tribunal's decision. Ultimately, the court upheld the Tribunal's ruling that the share income was rightfully excluded from the individual assessment, ruling in favor of the assessee and against the Revenue. Due to the assessee's absence during the hearing, no costs were awarded.

---