On December 31, 1945, Charandas Haridas acting for his three minor sons and himself and Shantaben, his wife, entered into an oral agreement for a partial partition.
K. Daphtary, Solicitor General of India K. N. Rajagopal Sastri and D. Gupta, for the respondents.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated February 16, 1955, of the Bombay High Court in Income tax Reference No.
V. Viswanatha Sastri, B. K. B. Naidu and I. N. Shroff, for the appellants.
In the assessment years 1947 48 and 1948 49, Charandas Haridas claimed that the income should numberlonger be treated as the income of the Hindu undivided family but as the separate income of the divided members.
The balance together with the shares in the other managing agencies was divided into five equal shares between Charandas Haridas, his wife and sons.
By that agreement Charandas Haridas gave an one pie share to his daughter, Pratima, in the managing agency companymission from two of the six managing agencies held by the family.
In stating the facts relative to the two families, it will number be necessary to give them separately, because the question which was answered by the High Court in the judgment under appeal arose in identical circumstances in the two families.
This agreement was to companye into effect from January 1, 1946, which was the beginning of a fresh accounting year.
Charandas Haridas represented his wife, three sons and himself, and Chinubhai Haridas represented his wife, son and himself.
In previous years, the income received by him as partner in these managing agencies was being assessed as the income of the Hindu undivided family.
Leave to appeal to this Court was refused by the High Court, but Charandas Haridas applied to this Court and obtained special leave, and the present appeal was filed.
March 15.
We will, therefore, companyfine ourselves to a statement of the facts relating to Charandas Haridas only.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by HIDAYATULLAH, J. This is an appeal with the Hid special leave of this Court against the judgment and order dated February 16, 1955, of the High Court of Bombay in an Income tax Reference under s. 66 2 of the Indian Income tax Act.
The appellants are two assessees, Charandas Haridas and Chinubhai Haridas, whose cases are identical, and, in fact, there was a companysolidated reference by the Income tax Appellate Tribunal, which was answered by the High Court by its judgment.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
Charandas Haridas was the Karta of the Hindu undivided family companysisting of his wife, three sons and himself.
The two appellants represented two units of Hindu undivided families.
The Income tax Officer declined to treat the income as any but of the Hindu undivided family, and assessed the income as before.
108 of 1957.
He was a partner in six managing agency firms in six Mills.
It further held that the document was a farce , and did number save the family from assessment as Hindu undivided family.
The only difference is in the shares held respectively by the two Hindu undivided families in the managing agencies to be hereafter mentioned.
An appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was un.successful, and the matter was taken to the Income tax Appellate Tribunal.
On September 11, 1946, Charandas Haridas acting for himself and his minor sons, and Shantaben executed a memorandum of partial partition in which the above facts were recited, the document purporting to be a record of what had taken place orally earlier.
The respondents are respectively the Commissioner of Income tax, Bombay North, Kutch and Saurashtra and the Commissioner of Income tax, Delhi, Ajmer, Rajasthan and Madhya Bharat.
35/x of 1954.
