COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. BENI PRASAD TANDON

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, has referred the following question of law to this court :

(2.) SHRI Beni Prasad is the assessee. The assessment year is 1958-59. The assessee is the son of SHRI Manmohan Das Tandon. At one time the joint family consisted of SHRI Manmohan Das Tandon and his five sons including the present assessee. There was a complete partition between the members of the joint family. For several years SHRI Beni Prasad was assessed in the status of an individual. He was so assessed for the assessment year 1958-59 also. The income so assessed included the income received from the property allotted to SHRI Beni Prasad upon partition. The assessee appealed. He raised the point that, although a sum of Rs. 26,476 was his personal income, the income derived from the property allotted upon partition was income of the Hindu undivided family consisting of himself, his wife and minor daughters. This contention was not accepted by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. He dismissed the appeal, and confirmed the order of the Income-tax officer. Upon further appeal, the contention raised by the assessee was liable to pay tax on the amount of Rs. 26,476, the rest of the income should be excluded from the assessment of the appellant in his individual status. The appeal was allowed accordingly. The Commissioner of Income-tax, U.P., applied for a reference to the court raising the point that the Tribunal was wrong in holding that the income from property received upon partition was not the assessees separate income. The Tribunal has accordingly referred the question of law quoted above.

(3.) IN Krishnamurthi v. Dhruwaraj B died in 1882 predeceasing his father, N, and leaving behind his widow, T.N. died in 1892 leaving behind K, his daughter, who succeeded to his property as full owner. K died in 1933, and her son, V, who has succeeded to her property also died in 1934 leaving behind two sons, the appellants. T adopted D, the respondent in 1945. It was held that the respondent was entitled to succeed in the suit as his adoption had the effect of divesting the family of the property inherited from K.