COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. PARMANANDAS MOHANLAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS reference under S. 256(1) of the IT Act arises on the following three questions for our consideration :

(2.) THE relevant year is asst. year 1974 75. For this assessment year, the ITO had taken the status of the assessee as an individual. This was challenged by the assessee by way of appeal in which the AAC reversed the finding of the ITO and held that the correct status of the assessee would be HUF.

(3.) ON the facts of the case, it is clear that there was a partial partition of the bigger HUF in Samvat Year 2021 (asst. year 1968 69), which partial partition was granted by the ITO by order dt. 16th Jan., 1967. On this partial partition of the bigger HUF being accepted by the Revenue, the assessee became a Karta of the smaller HUF consisting of himself, his wife and unmarried daughter.