1974 (2) 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 firm was converted into a partnership firm in which the wife did not join as a partner. Thereafter the only partners were Bajrang Lal and his two major sons, the two minor sons were admitted to the benefits of the partnership. With regard to the rest of the assets, the original Hindu undivided family continued. In his individual assessment, Bajrang Lal claimed that the share which he received on partition was liable to be assessed in his hands in the status of a Hindu undivided family consisting of himself, his widowed mother and unmarried daughter. The Income-tax Officer, however, held that Bajrang Lal was liable to be assessed in the status of an individual. This view was affirmed on appeal. Bajrang Lal, the assessee, took the dis....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ly by adoption. It held that on the facts of the case the normal presumption would be that the family as claimed had no potentiality to add a coparcener. The Tribunal observed that if they had been persuaded to accept that the family was capable to add a member to the family, they would have allowed the assessee's appeals. On this view it was held that the assessee cannot be given the status of a Hindu undivided family. At the instance of the assessee the Tribunal has referred to this court the following questions : " 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee was not entitled to the status of Hindu undivided family for the assessment years 1959-60 and 1960-61? 2.....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the hearing he was unable to give the required information to the Tribunal at that time. So he made enquiries and filed an affidavit giving the ages of the respective members of the family on 27th October, 1969. It appears that on that very day the Tribunal announced its judgement. It is possible that the affidavit did not reach the members of the Tribunal on that day. In any event, we are not satisfied that it is quite correct to say that the assessee was reluctant to furnish the requisite information so that an adverse inference could be drawn from his conduct. Moreover, there is no basis whatever for the view taken by the Tribunal that during the material period the assessee's youngest child was the unmarried daughter, aged 13. No on....