TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1985 (3) TMI 38
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....assessment year 1966-67. She had a bank account in her name. The assessee as guardian of his minor daughter transacted speculation business in shares through the brokers, M/s. Kothari Trading Co. Ltd. and M/s. Jhawar & Co. The Income-tax Officer examined the two brokers to enquire at whose instructions those transactions were entered into. They replied that the contracts were made on the instructions of the assessee. The assessee's contention against the inclusion of the speculation income in the name of Kumari Manjusri Birla was that the income had been deposited in the bank account of the minor and that she was the real beneficiary and that the income did not belong to him. The Income-tax Officer, however, was of the opinion that it was t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s to burden the estate with the risk of that business. The Tribunal then observed that speculation business in shares was not by itself illegal but even if in doing that business for the minor daughter, the assessee could not legally bind the estate of the minor, the illegality of that business did not affect the liability. The Tribunal observed that the guardian who carried on the business of the minor no doubt applied his mind but did business on behalf of the minor and not his own business and he could only be assessed in respect of the income of the minor from that business in a representative capacity and no personal assessment could be made on the guardian in respect of such income. The Tribunal held that in the present case, there wa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....an one reason, we are unable to accept the contention of Mr. H. M. Dhar, learned advocate for the Revenue. The Tribunal held that in the present case, there was no material to show that the business really belonged to the assessee and not to the minor daughter, though the transaction was done by the assessee. This finding was challenged by specific question but the Tribunal did not allow that said question. Secondly, the finding of the Tribunal that the minor had her capital and the business was done by the assessee as guardian was also challenged by specific question as being perverse. That question was also refused by the Tribunal. The Revenue thereafter did not move this court under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Thus, the q....