ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. CURIOUS HOUSE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this consolidated order, we propose to answer the common question referred in these references.

(2.) D.B.I.T. Reference No. 24 of 1978 relates to the assessment years 1965-66 and 1966-67. D.B.I.T. Reference No. 39 of 1980 is in respect of the assessment years 1967-68 to 1978-79. D.B.I.T. References Nos. 26 of 1978, 17 of 1984 and 49 of 1980, relate to the assessment years 1966-67, 1970-71, 1971-72 and 1972-73 respectively. In D.B. Income-tax Reference No. 5 of 1981, the assessment year involved is 1971-72.

(3.) IT may be mentioned that a somewhat similar view was taken in CIT v. Mariappa Muthiriyar & Sons [1985] 154 ITR 466, wherein, the learned Judges of the Madras High Court held that there could be a valid partnership between the karta of a Hindu undivided family and one or more of its coparceners in their individual capacity, while still remaining joint if the coparcener contribute to the partnership what is admittedly his separate properly held in his individual capacity and unconnected with the family funds and such a partnership can be entered into not only for commencing a new business, but also in respect of an existing joint family business and such a firm would be entitled to registration.