TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1994 (6) TMI 44
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....enue has taken common grounds to urge that the order of the Dy. CIT(A) is opposed to law, facts and circumstances of the case and he erred in his decision and is not in accordance with the judgment of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v. V. Kumaraswamy [1987] 163 ITR 252 (Mad.). 2. The assessee is an individual and he is a partner in the firm M/s. N. Balasubramaniam & Co., Hardware Merchants at Rasipuram in his representative capacity. The original assessments made for these years were re-opened on the ground that the share income from the same firm derived by Smt. B. Mallika, wife of the assessee, is required to be included u/s 64(1)(i). In the reassessments made the share income of Smt. B. Mallika was duly included as de....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....not justified in law and accordingly he deleted the inclusion of share income for all these years. 3. At the time of hearing, the learned departmental representative has been heard at great length. He has reiterated the common grounds taken by the revenue and supported the orders of the Assessing Officer. 4. The learned counsel for the assessee, on the other hand, vehemently supported the order of the Dy. CIT(A) by relying on the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Sanka Sankaraiah and also relied on the latest judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Harbhajan Lal [1993] 204 ITR 361 wherein the controversy has been set at rest in favour of the assessee. 5. After due consideration of the rival submis....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ndividual in a firm. If such an 'individual' represents a HUF as its karta and the income in his hands goes to the HUF then for the purposes of section 64(1)(i) and (ii), it cannot be held that it is the income of an individual. If the contention of the revenue is correct, then there can be no income from the partnership to the HUF whose karta as such is the partner thereof. This position, as such, is not tenable and cannot be accepted. In the present case it has been found as a fact that the assessee is only representing the HUF in the firm, M/s. Vinod Trading Co., at present. In this view of the matter, we find that the view taken by the Appellate Tribunal is correct and the answer to the question is in the affirmative, i.e. against the r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the assessee in his individual capacity. The Deputy CIT (Appeals) has categorically stated this in his appellate order at page 4 thereof. It is now to be seen whether the share income of the spouse or minor children, as the case may be, is required to be clubbed in the hands of the assessee in his individual assessments or not. Prima facie, the re-assessments in the case of the assessee are all made in the capacity of an individual. Only when assessments are made in individual capacity, clubbing is permisible in law. Accordingly, the plain provisions of section 64(1)(i) is clearly attracted and the inclusion of share income of the spouse in the total income of the individual is warranted in law. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Mad....