COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. VIRDHICHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Tribunal has referred the following question of law arising out of its order dt. 9th Jan., 1980 in respect of the asst. yrs. 1967-68 to 1969-70 under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961 (`the Act') :

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that the assessee is an HUF. The ITO required the assessee to show cause as to why income earned by the concerns under the names of Curios House, Virdhichand Pannalal, Virdhichand & Sons should not be assessed in the hands of the HUF. The ITO after considering the reply of the assessee came to the conclusion that the property income of Shri Onkarmal and Shri Narainlal as well as these concerns belongs to HUF since the investment is from the property acquired out of HUF fund. In appeal before the AAC, notice of one letter which was filed before the ITO was taken wherein it was claimed that no ancestral funds have been used for commencing the business of the firm. The matter of the assessee was considered by this Court in CIT vs. Virdhichand & Sons (IT Ref. No, 15 of 1981) and Addl. CIT vs. Virdhichand Pannalal / Addl. CIT vs. Curios House (IT Ref. No. 26 of 1978, dt. 1st Nov., 1985). All these references were answered in the affirmative in favour of the assessees against the Revenue.