COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. K A RAJAGOPAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Tribunal has stated the case and referred the following question of law for consideration under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961 :

(2.) THE assessment year involved is 1987-88. The assessee is a partner in a partnership firm of B.K.M. Ananthapadmanabha Iyer and Sons representing his joint family. In the assessment proceedings of the assessee, the ITO held that the remuneration of the assessee/partner was assessable in the hands of HUF and not in the hands of the partner in his individual capacity. The Dy. CIT(A) on appeal allowed the claim of the assessee holding that the remuneration should be assessed in his individual capacity and not in the hands of the joint family. The order of the Dy. CIT (A) was upheld by the Tribunal.

(3.) FOLLOWING the said decision of N. Deenadayalan's case (supra) and for the various reasons stated therein, we hold that the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the remuneration received by the assessee is not to be included as part of the income of the joint family, but should be assessed in the individual assessment of the assessee.