SAHU GOVIND PRASAD Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a reference under Section 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 (hereinafter " the Act") and at the instance of the assessee the following question of law has been referred by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench-D (hereinafter " the Tribunal "), for the opinion of this court ;

(2.) THE material facts are these. THE assessment year involved is 1972-73, the corresponding accounting period ended March 31, 1972. THE assessee, Sahu Govind Prasad is an individual. He is a partner of a firm, M/s. Arvind Cold Storage by name, as karta of his HUF. His two minor sons, Sidhartha Prasad and Rahul Prasad, were admitted to the benefits of partnership in this firm. THE ITO treated the share of the profit of these minor sons of the firm as income of the assessee and included the same in his total income. Aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the AAC, which failed and then took up the matter in further appeal before the Tribunal. For the assessment years 1967-68 to 1969-70, in the case of the assessee and his brother, Madho Prasad, both of whom were partners of this firm as representing their respective HUFs, and minor sons of both of whom were admitted to the benefits of partnership in this firm, this court had, agreeing with the revenue authorities and the Tribunal, taken the view that the share of each of the minors in the profits of the firm was liable to be included in the income of their respective fathers in their individual status under Section 64(l)(ii). This decision is Madho Prasad v. CIT [1978] 112 ITR 492 (All); following that decision the Tribunal agreed with the revenue authorities and dismissed the appeal. As stated earlier, at the instance of the assessee the question mentioned above has now been referred to this court.

(3.) UNDER Section 2(31) "person" includes, (i) an individual, (ii) a Hindu undivided family, (iii) a company, (iv) a firm, (vj an association of persons or a body of individuals, whether incorporated or not, (vi) a local authority, and (vii) every artificial judical person, not falling within any of the preceding sub-clauses.