COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. CHANCHALDAS SOBHRAJMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE six applications have been moved by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Jaipur, under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred, to as "the Act"), seeking a direction to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal"), to state the case and refer questions arising out of the order of the Tribunal to this court for its opinion.

(2.) THE assessee is M/s. Chanchaldas Sobhrajmal, Beawar, which is a Hindu undivided family and the assessments pertain to the assessment years 1968-69 to 1972-73 and 1974-75. A partnership firm, M/s. Murlidhar and Company, was constituted by a deed of partnership dated September 9, 1966, in which the Hindu undivided family, M/s. Chanchaldas Sobhrajmal, entered as a partner through its karta, Shri Mirchumal. Three other partners of M/s. Murlidhar and Company, namely, Laxmandas, Udhavdas and Kanhaiyalal, were also coparceners of the assessee family. Two other coparceners of the assessee family, Baldeodas and Devidas, minor sons of Chanchaldas, were admitted to benefits of the partnership, while another minor partner of the firm Vasumal was an outsider. In the subsequent years, Laxmandas and Kanhaiyalal were replaced in the partnership firm by their wives, Smt. Kishani Bai and Meena Bai, as partners. In the assessments pertaining to the assessment years 1968-69 and 1969-70, the Income-tax Officer held that the major and minor coparceners of the assessee family were taken as co-partners in the partnership firm, M/s. Murlidhar and Company, in view of the capital invested by the Hindu undived family in the partnership firm and, therefore, they represented the Hindu undivided family in the firm along with the karta, Mirchumal. THE Income-tax Officer, consequently, held that the income of the minor coparceners was also liable to be included in the assessment of the Hindu undivided family, assessee. However, in respect of the major coparceners, the Income-tax Officer did not include their shares in the assessment of the Hindu undivided family, but while making the assessments of the Hindu undivided family for the assessment years 1970-71, 1971-72 and 1972-73 did not include the income of the minor coparceners. In respect of the assessment year 1974-75, the Income-tax Officer followed the order passed by him in the earlier assessment years 1970-71 to 1972-73.

(3.) ALL these applications under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, seeking reference are, therefore, dismissed as no question of law arises out of the orders passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur.