1988 (7) TMI 10

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...., the family also has income from house property. The assessee claimed deduction of Rs. 20,000 which was paid to the karta by way of annual salary in pursuance of an agreement between the karta and the other members of the family. The deduction was disallowed by the assessing authority. His order was reversed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner but restored by the Tribunal holding that the female members of the family have no right in the property or income of the Hindu undivided family and that the agreement entered into was void, being without consideration and, as such, the assessee was not entitled to the deduction of the said amount alleged to have been paid by way of salary to the karta. However, on the application of the assessee....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s also not disputed by learned counsel for the petitioner that when the Hindu undivided family has only one male member, he has the absolute right of management and disposal of the property and its income. The agreement entered into by the female members with the karta was, therefore, not only without jurisdiction but also without any authority. Questions Nos. (1) and (2), therefore, have to be answered in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. In spite of the answers to questions Nos. (1) and (2) in the affirmative, learned counsel for the assessee, relying on the Supreme Court judgment in Jugal Kishore Baldeo Sahai v. CIT [1967] 63 ITR 238 and judgment of the Madras High Court in CIT v. Annamalai (S. ....