On May 10, 1943, the widow, Luthfunnissa, filed a suit for partition and also applied for the companytinuance of the joint receivers.
In due companyrse a preliminary decree for partition was passed.
The nature of the business was such that it companyld number be divided up and had to be carried on as one whole with a unity of companytrol and all the parties desired to preserve and did preserve this unity.
The business was inherited by the heirs of Oomer Sahib and was carried on without break during the accounting years first by the widow and Dawood and then jointly by the receivers.
The opposition by the appellant to the application for receivership filed on behalf of Luthfunnissa, the widow, was only on the ground that the appellant wanted different persons to be appointed and number to the companytinuance of the business or to the unity of companytrol.
In the beginning Luthfunnissa and Dawood carried on the business and from the date of their appointment, i.e., May 17, 1943, the joint receivers companytinued the business till November 25, 1946, when during the companyrse of the proceedings the business was put tip for sale by auction between the companyheirs and was purchased by Noorullah.
1 1 1 of 1953.
This appointment was by companysent of parties.
The profits of the business were assessed to tax in the hands of the receivers as the income of an association of persons and the companytention of the appellant that the share of the profits of each of the companyheirs should have been separately taxed, was rejected by the Income tax authorities as well as by the Income tax Appellate Tribunal.
Appeals by special leave from the judgment and order dated May 14, 1957, of the Madras High Court, in Case Referred No.
The only question which was raised both before the department as well as before the Tribunal was the assessment to tax of the income of the business.
There was numberdispute in regard to the income of the properties which was taxed under s. 9 3 of the Act.
Noorullah through his next friend applied to sue in forma pauperis and during the pendency of those proceedings two Advocates of the Madras High Court were appointed joint receivers of the properties of the deceased on March 17, 1943.
The Income tax Appellate Tribunal in its order stated In fact, there was numberchange in the companytinuity of the business and from the date of death of Md. Oomer Sahib up to 24th March, 1943, the business was carried on by mutual agreement and companysent by Luthfunnissa Begum acting on her own behalf and on behalf of her minor children and her minor step son Md. Noorullah.
On this ground the income was number assessed as the income of an association of persons and that case as also decided on its own facts.
Noorullah opposed this application but by an order dated May 25,1943, the receivers were ordered to be companytinued and they carried on the business as before.
303 to 307 of 1960.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeals Nos.
The years of assessment are 1944 45 to 47 48, the relevant accounting years for which were the calendar years 1943 to 1946.
The facts leading to the appeals are that one Khan Sahib Mohamed Oomer Sahib, who was carrying on the business of manufacture and sale of Spade Clover brand Beedies, died on December 17, 1942, leaving a minor son Mohamed Noorullah the appellant by his pre deceased wife, a widow, Luthfunnissa Begum, and four children by her who were all minors at the date of the death of Oomer Sahib.
And this question was decided in the affirmative and therefore against the appellants.
Ganapathy Iyer and G. Gopalakrishnan for the appellant.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KAPUR, J. These appeals are brought by special leave against the judgment and order of the High Court of Madras in an Income tax reference under s. 66 1 of the Indian Income tax Act, hereinafter termed the Act.
N. Rajagopal Sastri and D. Gupta, for the respondent.
January 18.
The question referred was Whether the income tax assessment of the business of I Spade Clover Beedies belonging to the estate of the deceased and carried on during the previous years 1943 to 1946 as an association of persons for the assessment years 1944 45 to 1947 48 is valid?
