1400/ per month paid to him by the partnership represents his individual income and should be assessed as such .and should number be clubbed with the partner ship share income belonging to the HUF.
The income returned each year thereafter has been going up with the result that by the year 1969 70, the income returned was 1,29,921/ and the income assessed Rs.
The companyrectness of the view taken by the High Court is questioned in this appeal.
The share of Sadanand was in turn sub divided among his wife and two minor sons, each enjoying a share of /2/4.
So far as the allowances paid were companycerned, while the allowance paid to Parmanand remained at Rupees 700/ per month, the allowance paid to Brij Mohan was raised from Rs.
However, in the return filed for the assessment year 1969 70, he took a different stand which has given rise to the present companytroversy.
1400/ and Rs.
6 11 1947.
Raj Kumari was inducted as a partner in place of her husband.
The basic facts found by the Tribunal are the following 1 The income returned by the partnership firm for the assessment year 1964 65 was Rs.
Be that as it may, for the assessment years 1967 68 and 1968 69, he filed returns in the status of Hindu Undivided Family HUF in short disclosing therein both the partnership share income and the allowance received by him.
300/ per month with effect from November, 1952.
In this return he claimed that the allowance of Rs.
The Income tax Officer rejected the same.
On 28 6 1948, the firm was re constituted by admitting a working partner, Ram Lubhaya.
400/ and Rs.
The allowance payable to Brij Mohan and Man Mohan remained at Rs.
700/ per month and Brij Mohan, who was 16 years of age at that time was provided an allowance of Rs.
Sadanand died on 28 6 1947.
The assessed income of the partnership has gone up from Rupees 68,622/ in the assessment year 1964 65 to Rs.
400/ per month and Man Mohan was given an allowance of Rs.
The fourteen annas share was exclusively divided between the widow and the two sons of Sadanand, in the ratio of /4/ wife , /6/ Brij Mohan and /4/ Man Mohan .
He was given /2/ share and the remaining /14/ share was equally divided between Parmanand and the widow of Sadanand.
In the year 1952, a fresh deed of partnership was executed admitting Brij Mohan as a full fledged partner.
Parmanand was provided a working allowance of Rs.
On 7 9 1957, Ram Lubhaya, the working partner went out of the partnership firm.
51,488/ and the income assessed Rs.
Sadanand had left behind two sonsBrij Mohan and Man Mohan, who were minors on the date of his death.
68,622/ .
Both the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Tribunal affirmed the same.
Brij Mohans allowance was raised to Rs.
250/ per month respectively.
1,61,100/ in the year 1969 70.
On this occasion, Parmanand who had numbersons retired from partnership.
250/ per month.
This new partnership was evidenced by a deed of partnership dt.
250/ per month.
1,61,100/ .
400/. and Rupees 250/ per month to Rs.
Evidently, he thought that the birth of son gives rise to a Hindu Undivided Family.
May be this is on account of inflation, but there is certainly an increase in the turnover and in the income of the partnership firm.
On 1 11 1955, there was yet another change in the partnership, occasioned by Man Mohan attaining majority.
250/ per month to Rs.
The profit share ratio, however, remained the same.
The partnership number companysisted of widow and the two sons of Sadanand, their shares being 25, 44 and 31 respectively.
On his death his widow Smt.
Till the assessment year 1966 67, Brij Mohan was filing his return of income as an individual disclosing therein both the share income from the partnership and the allowance received by him from the partnership.
On 1 4 1965, the allowances payable to Brij Mohan and Man Mohan were raised from Rs.
A son was born to him on 14 11 1966.
Accordingly, the Tribunal apportioned the allowance of Rupees 1400/ per month into two companyponents Rs.
Two broad facts need be numbericed in this case.
1200/ per month respectively.
The question was answered in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee by the High Court.
P. Jeevan Reddy, J. This appeal is preferred by the assessee against the judgment of the Delhi High Court in an Income tax Reference made at his instance.
