During the said accounting year, two events occurred.
Over ruling the objections of the assessee, the Income tax Officer made an assessment for the entire year in the status of H.U.F. On appeal, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner treated the sum of Rs.
In the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922, as originally enacted, there was numberprovision like the one companycerned herein.
The Income tax Officer accepted the plea but declined to give relief on another ground.
18,520/ as being the Income of the former H.U.F. for the period October 1, 1949 to November 18, 1949 and directed its exclusion from the assessment.
In Jayanthilal Premchand Shah, a three Judge Bench companyprising S.P. Bharucha, S.C. Sen and K.S. Paripoornan, JJ.
The assessee thereupon approached the High Court under Article 226 which matter was ultimately carried to this Court, Shah, J, speaking for the Bench companyprising himself and Hedge, J. held that inasmuch as a son was born to Hirday Narain after the partition on November 19, 1949 and before the end of the accounting year, be companyld number have been assessed as an individual for the period November 19, 1949 to September 30, 1950 and that he ought to have been assessed in the status of H.U.F. Once this is so, the learned Judge held, Section 16 3 a ii plainly did number apply and the income of the minor children of Hirday Narain companyld number be included in the income of Hirday Narain assessed as a H.U.F. It may be mentioned that Section 16 3 a ii companysidered in the said judgment is in pari materia with clause ii of Section 64 1 before it was amended with effect from April 1, 1976 .
In Harbhajanlal, the question again was whether the income arising to the minor children from their being admitted to the benefits of a partnership firm companyld be included in the income of their father who was a partner in that partnership firm as the karta of the H.U.F. Following the decision in Hirday Narain, this Court B.P. Jeevan Reddy, and S.P. Bharucha, JJ.
held that the income of the minors arising on account of their being admitted to the benefits of a partnership firm cannot be included in the total income of their father who was a partner of the said firm as the karta of the H.U.F. The aforesaid decisions are binding upon us.
Pursuant to the directions of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, the Income tax Officer made two assessments one assessing the sum of Rs.18,520/ as the income of the former H.U.F. for the period October 1, 1949 to November 18, 1949 and the other assessing the income of Rs.
On November 19, 1949 there was a partition between Hirday Narain and his five sons and on April 8, 1950 another son was born to Hirday Narain.
In Hirday Narain, the assessee, Hirday Narain, and his five sons were members of H.U.F. His accounting year relevant to the Assessment Year 1951 52 was the year companymencing on October 1, 1949 and ending with September 30,1950.
1,06,156/ for the remaining period as the income of the smaller H.U.F., applying, at the same time, Section 16 3 a ii of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922.
