COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. DWARKA PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALL these cases have been heard together and are being disposed of herewith as the facts and the question of law are same and identical. The assessment years in question are 1971-72 and 1972-73 relating to all the assessees, five in number.

(2.) THE hearing of these cases was awaiting the disposal of Tax Case No. 3 of 1975 [CIT v. Atma Ram Budhia [1984] 146 ITR 240 (Pat)], which was referred to a Full Bench because the question referred in these cases and the earlier case is almost similar, namely, as to whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the salary received by a member of the HUF from a firm in which he was working as a partner, could be assessed in his personal assessment or was includible in the total income for the assessment of the HUF represented by him.

(3.) WE have heard learned counsel for the parties and from the facts stated above, it is clear that the facts and circumstances of the present cases are almost identical and similar to those of Atma Ram Budhia's case [1984] 146 ITR 240 (Pat) [FB], where a Full Bench, on a review of a large number of cases of the Supreme Court, laid down the principle that where there was no real and sufficient connection between the investment of the joint family funds in acquiring the shares, and the payment of the remuneration to the karta, the remuneration paid to him was not earned by any detriment to the joint family assets and the amounts received by him were not assessable as the income of the HUF.