COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX Vs. HARBHAGWAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) TWO questions have been referred at the instance of the Revenue and one question has been referred at the instance of the assessee for the opinion of this court. Question No. 2 referred at the instance of the Revenue and the sole question referred at the instance of the assessee are covered by our decision in Income-tax Reference No. 149 of 1980 (CIT v. Ravinder Kumar [1989] 180 ITR 203 (Pandh)), rendered today. For the reasons recorded therein, both these questions are answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.

(2.) NOW, we are left with question No. 1, referred at the instance of the Revenue. The question is as follows :

(3.) PRECISELY this very point came up for consideration before this court earlier in CIT v. Anand Sarup [1980] 121 ITR 873, and the question was answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue to the effect that the Tribunal was right in not including the share of the assessee's wife in the firm in which he was a partner in his representative capacity as karta of his Hindu undivided family, under Section 64 (1) (ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short "the Act" ). It was pointed out on behalf of the Revenue that a special leave petition has been granted against the decision in Anand Sarup's case [1980] 121 ITR 873 (Pandh ). If that is so, the Revenue may take this case also to the Supreme Court. However, we are bound by the judgment in Anand Sarup's case [1980] 121 ITR 873 (P and H ). Accordingly, we answer the question in favour of the assessee, that is, in the negative, with no order as to costs.