1976 (7) TMI 94 - AT - Income Tax

Investment in Firm Not H.U.F. Asset: Tribunal Decision Upheld

The Tribunal allowed both appeals, ruling in favor of the assessee. It held that the investment in M/s Meenakshi Finance Corporation was made in the ... - Issues:1. Whether the share income from M/s Meenakshi Finance Corporation should be included in the assessment of the assessee in the status of H.U.F.2. Whether the lower authorities were justified in clubbing the share income from M/s. Meenakshi Finance Corporation with that of the H.U.F. of Shri Viswanathan Chettiar.Analysis:1. The case involved two appeals by the same assessee regarding the inclusion of share income from M/s Meenakshi Finance Corporation in the assessment of the assessee as H.U.F. For the assessment year 1972-73, the assessee, Shri B.A. Viswanathan Chettiar, joined the firm of M/s Meenakshi Finance Corporation as a partner by investing Rs. 10,000. The Income-tax Officer treated this investment as belonging to the H.U.F. of the assessee, leading to the inclusion of share income in the H.U.F. assessment. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner upheld this decision, prompting the appeal to the Tribunal in ITA No. 2132 (Mds)/1974-75.2. In the second appeal, for the assessment year 1972-73, the Income-tax Officer again treated the investment in M/s Meenakshi Finance Corporation as H.U.F. funds and clubbed the income with that of the H.U.F. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner confirmed this decision, resulting in the appeal to the Tribunal in ITA No. 1518 (Mds)/1975-76.3. The central issue in both appeals was whether the Rs. 10,000 invested in M/s Meenakshi Finance Corporation was borrowed by the assessee in his individual capacity or if it constituted H.U.F. funds. The assessee argued that the amount was borrowed individually and utilized as capital for the partnership. The Tribunal considered the evidence, including a letter from the assessee detailing the borrowing, and held that the funds were borrowed in the individual capacity of the assessee. Therefore, the share income from M/s Meenakshi Finance Corporation could not be included in the H.U.F. assessment.4. The Tribunal emphasized that there was no proof that the investment in the firm was made using joint family funds. Based on the facts presented and previous decisions, it was concluded that the assessee borrowed the funds individually and acted as a partner in M/s Meenakshi Finance Corporation in his individual capacity. Consequently, the share income from the firm could not be clubbed with the H.U.F. income of the assessee.5. Ultimately, the Tribunal allowed both appeals of the assessee, ruling in favor of the assessee's contention that the investment in M/s Meenakshi Finance Corporation was made in his individual capacity and not as part of the H.U.F. assessment.