SATISH CHAND GUPTA Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Tribunal has referred the following question of law under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961 ('the Act') relating to the asst. yr. 1982 -83 at the instance of the assessee for opinion to this Court : "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that income received by Smt. Uma Rani as her share of profit in the partnership firm M/s Satya Pal Gupta & Bros. is chargeable in the hands of Shri Satish Chand Gupta, the assessee appellant, by invoking s. 64(1)(ii) of the IT Act, 1961, despite the fact that the assessee is a partner in the said firm as Karta representing his HUF -

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are as follows : The assessee had been assessed in the status of resident -individual. The accounting period is claimed to be the financial year. One Smt. Uma Rani was a partner in the firm M/s Satya Pal Gupta & Bros. where her husband, the assessee appellant was also a partner, but the assessee represents his HUF in the said firm, i.e., his partnership is in the representative capacity as Karta. By invoking s. 64(1)(ii) of the IT Act, 1961, assessing authority had included the share income of Smt. Uma Rani in the hands of the assessee relying upon the decision of this Court in the case of Madho Prasad vs. CIT 1976 CTR (All) 334 : (1978) 112 ITR 492 (All). First appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed. Tribunal has also dismissed the second appeal relying upon the decision of this Court in the case of Madho Prasad (supra) and in the case of Sahu Govind Prasad vs. CIT (1984) 38 CTR (All) 297 : (1983) 144 ITR 851 (All).

(3.) HEARD Sri Amitabh Agarwal holding brief of Shri P.K. Jain, advocate and Shri A.N. Mahajan, learned standing counsel.