RAMESH CHANDRA Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Tribunal has stated the following two questions for the opinion of this court:

(2.) The assessee's father, Sri Surendra Nath Dhaul, was a partner in a firm, Messrs. Bebru Brushware. He was a partner in that firm in his individual capacity. After his death, the said interest devolved upon the asses-see. Indeed, the partnership deed dated October 24, 1971, executed after the death of his father specifically recites that the assessee joined the partnership after the death of his father who was himself a partner of the said partnership dated April 1, 1967. The capital of the deceased father continued to remain with the firm and became the capital of the assessee. In his assessment, the assessee claimed that the interest of his father in the firm which devolved upon him is joint family property in his hands and that he must be assessed in the status of Hindu undivided family with respect to the said property. (The assessee had a son.) The Income-tax Officer, however, held that since the father was a partner in the aforesaid firm in his individual status, his interest devolved upon the assessee under section 8 of the Act and, therefore, it is his separate property.

(3.) On appeal, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner agreed with the Income-tax Officer and dismissed the appeal. Thereupon, the matter came in appeal before the Tribunal. Indeed, it appears that there were two appeals before the Tribunal, one by the assessee and the other by the Revenue, but that is not relevant for our purpose. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal following a decision of this court in CWT v. Chander Sen [1974] 96 ITR 634, whereupon the assesses obtained the present reference.