COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. AMAR NATH BHATIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AMAR Nath Bhatia as karta of the joint Hindu family formed a partnership firm with his minor sons, namely, Rajiv Kumar and Ajay Kumar. The business of the firm was being carried on under the name and style of Messrs United Steel Products, Panipat. The Income-tax Officer clubbed the income of Rajiv Kumar and Ajay Kumar with the income of AMAR Nath Bhatia under Section 64(1)(ii) of the I.T. Act, 1961. In appeal, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, deleted from the income of the assessee the income derived by his two minor sons on the ground that since AMAR Nath Bhatia had not become a member of the partnership firm in his individual capacity, the aforementioned provision of law was not attracted. At the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Haryana, Rohtak, the following question of law has been referred to us for our opinion :

(2.) IN CIT v. Anand Sarup [1980] 121 ITR 873 (P & H), a similar question came up for consideration before a Division Bench of this court. The Bench observed (p. 877) :