1987 (4) TMI 90

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rest of 25 per cent share in the partnership firm of M/s L.M. Talkies and capital of Rs. 23,500 lying with M/s L.M. Talkies. The deed of partial partition is stated to have been executed on 25th Sept., 1979 copy whereof has been given at the time of hearing, wherefrom it is seen that a partition has been effected between the following members: 1. Shri K.V. Panchal, Karta 2. Smt. Ami K. Panchal, wife of Karta 3. Minor Aditya K. Panchal, son. Out of the above three members, Shri K.V. Panchal is the only major coparcener who could claim the partition in the assessee HUF, the other coparcener being a minor. Under the circumstances, the other members of the HUF are not legally entitled to claim the partition. Moreover, the partition ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e ITO was confirmed. 4. At the time of hearing before us, it was submitted on behalf of the assessee that decision of the Gujarat High Court was reversed by the Supreme Court in the case of Apoorva Shantilal Shah, HUF vs. CIT (1983) 33 CTR (SC)) 153 : (1983) 141 ITR 553 (SC). Besides in CIT vs. Keshavlal Prabhudas Shah (1981) 24 CTR (Guj) 178 : (1981) 131 ITR 229 (Guj) it was held that what was partitioned was the share in the assets of the firm which might incidentally include loss in future if incurred by the firm and therefore, there was no question of minor sharing the loss of the firm. Besides, the language of s. 171 was clear and the amendment applied only to the HUFs hitherto assessed to tax and therefore, the families which were ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t of the payment required to be made on the basis of statement of income furnished together with the return of income and to such extent it is also machinery section so as to expedite the recovery of tax. The person could be called "assessed to tax" only when an assessment is completed in his case by the ITO either under s. 143 or under s. 144 of the Act governing the procedure of assessment and according to which the assessable income or loss is determined and the tax payable or refundable is calculated. Even the provisions contained in s. 2(7) of the Act defining the word 'assessee' would not be of any relevance or assistance to the Revenue. The decision relied upon by the ITO in the case of Apoorva Shantilal Shah (HUF) vs. CIT, now get s....