COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. SHAMSUNDER JUTHALAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE controversy in this reference lies in a very narrow compass. At the instance of the revenue and subject to the modification made by the High Court, the following two questions are required to be determined by us :

(2.) WHETHER , on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee is entitled to claim a set -off of the losses suffered by his father for the assessment year 1958 -59 ?' 2. The questions referred to relate to the assessment year 1958 -59 for which the relevant previous years is the Maru year 2013 -2014 (covering the period November 3, 1956, to October 23, 1957). Shamsunder, the assessee is the son of one Juthalal Motilal. Juthalal was a partner in three firms, namely, (1) M/s. Chimanram Motilal (Cotton and Wheat), (2) Chimanram Motilal (Gold and Silver), and (3) M/s. Kamlapat Motilal. Juthalal died on October 22, 1955, leaving him surviving his four heirs, including the assessee. The assessee inherited one -fourth of his father's share of interest in the three firms referred to above. In the assessment years up to 1956 -57 all the three firms were assessed as registered firms. There were certain losses and those losses had been apportioned amongst the partners including Juthalal. In the assessment for the year 1958 -59, the assessee claimed that to the the extent to which he had succeeded to his father's interest in the said firms the share of loss apportionable to the father was liable to be allowed in his hands under section 24(2)(iii)(e) of the Indian Income -tax Act, 1922 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').

(3.) IN an appeal by the assessee, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner followed his earlier order negative the claim for similar set -off for the year 1957 -58 and confirmed the order of the Income -tax Officer.