Skip to content


Gabdulal Tulsiram Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectDirect Taxation
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Case NumberMisc. Case No. 254 of 1946
Judge
Reported inAIR1950All302
ActsIncome Tax Act, 1922 - Sections 25(4); Income Tax Act, 1918
AppellantGabdulal Tulsiram
RespondentCommissioner of Income Tax
Appellant AdvocateG.S. Pathak and ; J.N. Takru, Advs.
Respondent AdvocateGopalji Mehrotra, Adv.
Excerpt:
- - 3. it is not contended that the other two businesses (1) the cloth business at kanpur and (2) the share in partnership business at farrukhabad were parts of the same ancestral business that had been carried on prior to 1922. as regards the partnership business there was merely a change in the constitution of the firm and the assessee is clearly not entitled to claim the benefit of section 25 (4). as regards the cloth business at kanpur, it not being suggested that this was not a separate business the assessee cannot claim that this business had at any time been charged under the provisions of the income-tax act of 1918. the assesses is, therefore, not entitled to claim any benefit with respect to this business either......25 (4), income-tax act, is admissible on the income, profits and gains of the assesses from the cloth business at kanpur, for the period from the end of the 'previous year' to the date of succession, namely 8th october 1941.'2. the assessee, a hindu undivided family, was carrying on business of (1) pawn brokers and sharrafa business at farrukhabad, (2) cloth business at kanpur and (3) share in partnership business, at farrukhabad. the partnership business and the cloth business were started long after 1922 and they were assessed to income-tax for the first time in the assessment year 1937-38. the pawn brokers and the sharrafa business had been charged to income-tax under the income-tax act of 1918. on 8th october 1941, there was a partition in the family and after the partition the.....
Judgment:

Malik, C.J.

1. The two questions of law raised in this case are similar to the question raised in Misc. case No. 221 of 1947. As a matter of fact no separate arguments were advanced by learned counsel in this case. The questions referred to us for answer are as follows:

'(1) Whether in circumstances of the case the benefit of Section 25 (4), Income-tax Act is admissible on the income, profits and gains of the assesses from all sources for the period from the end of the 'previous year' to the date of succession, namely 8th October 1941.

(2) Whether in the circumstances of the case the benefit of Section 25 (4), Income-tax Act, is admissible on the income, profits and gains of the assesses from the cloth business at Kanpur, for the period from the end of the 'previous year' to the date of succession, namely 8th October 1941.'

2. The assessee, a Hindu undivided family, was carrying on business of (1) pawn brokers and sharrafa business at Farrukhabad, (2) cloth business at Kanpur and (3) share in partnership business, at Farrukhabad. The partnership business and the cloth business were started long after 1922 and they were assessed to income-tax for the first time in the assessment year 1937-38. The pawn brokers and the sharrafa business had been charged to income-tax under the Income-tax Act of 1918. On 8th October 1941, there was a partition in the family and after the partition the three businesses were carried on by members of the family as partners of firms. The benefit of Section 25 (4) was given to the assessee with respect to the pawn brokers and the sharrafa only. The assessee claimed that the benefit of Section 25(4) should have been given with respect to all the three businesses.

3. It is not contended that the other two businesses (1) the cloth business at Kanpur and (2) the share in partnership business at Farrukhabad were parts of the same ancestral business that had been carried on prior to 1922. As regards the partnership business there was merely a change in the constitution of the firm and the assessee is clearly not entitled to claim the benefit of Section 25 (4). As regards the cloth business at Kanpur, it not being suggested that this was not a separate business the assessee cannot claim that this business had at any time been charged under the provisions of the Income-tax Act of 1918. The assesses is, therefore, not entitled to claim any benefit with respect to this business either.

4. My answer to the questions framed by the Tribunal is that the assessee is not entitled to claim the benefit of Section 25 (4), Income-tax Act with regard to the cloth business at Kanpur and the share in partnership business at Farrukhabad.

5. The assessee must pay the costs of this reference, which we assess at Rs. 300.

Seth J.

6. I have nothing to add and I would also return the same answer.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //