SETH CHUNILAL PARSRAM Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE question referred in this case pursuant to an order made by this court under section 66(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, is :

(2.) THE assessee, Seth Chunilal Parsram was being assessed in his capacity as karta of the Hindu undivided family consisting of himself and his three minor sons, the principal source of whose income was money-lending business. Although there was at one stage an attempt by the assessee to give it the character of a separate business carried on by him with money borrowed from the family, to the relevant details of which we shall refer presently, there is no dispute at present that the money-lending business was and continued to be, right up to the year relevant to the assessment now under reference, joint family business. THE cloth business mentioned in the question was carried on by the assessee under or pursuant to a contract of 3rd December, 1958, between himself and a Bombay firm Suratram Gopaldas. It is also the concurrent finding of all the authorities including the Tribunal that no part of the family funds was untilised for carrying on the said cloth business. THE said entire amount of Rs. 12,959.09 was received in one lump by the assessee from the Bombay firm along with their account statements, and was straightaway credited in one lump to the individual capital account in the name of the assessee in the books of account. THE books of account are books maintained in connection with the family money-lending business. THE individual capital account of the assessee referred to above, is a ledger title in the said account. THE other members of the family are, as already stated, the minor sons of the assessee. It is not the case that they had anything to do with the cloth business or that the said cloth business may be regarded as a joint venture by all the members of the family.

(3.) SUCH being the general features of the admitted facts of this case and the principle of law which should normally apply thereto, the only question is whether on the said facts the Tribunal can be said to have come to a correct conclusion on an application of the correct principles of law.