Narendrakumar J. Modi v. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Gujarat Ii, Ahmedabad

HAT HoATT ATT ATR, TATA-TL, AEAATATS (Narendrakumar J. Modi The Commissioner of Income-tax, Gujarat, _ Ahmedabad|_Tea, 1976). | (Flo WHO Wo GA, ato MXo FT AAT AITooUo Ueto Heatfeat)7 Sfusaet gem tae Caz, 1922 (1922%T11) ——aTeT25a (3)—-sa art. &meta ariarl—feg afawaeoRera H aeedt gre fawra st eal—ae AT ARC—afaaeret are ara feat aeT--ge ara ate fafaavaravaa«attr faa«ott osran = feat—arartafar & mea % fees seite-—adtea at aries gtaifeht& ate at afefron & ate fade grt watta faa arat——aret afeert Bowen % aga AAG aefafa arava art oifer faa at sreftae featGal fal, amaze, orfranfeat & fee arrgat aah art fare fafr——fgeg atawaa Gera—qera F TarraT0afeere—stesaaeal at agafaazer & ats vt oot fires afacs aeer cat eat ART H ea—aT A ad Aaamaregetter aa at are at ce cafe feaafergera aT wal aT) aaHera HB Te aga ah cara weafaciAATaTA wiv AT ag ara fafaa ae ware TT & Tea areane, aa aT Ta fr ATA, argard TAA, aria TARTa1 BTLATy,TATeATwaraare wie arforet Ft rarer BY ASL 1933 FH ay say ome[a MHo,“yo aTay aga fet ver et aat at.1 waedtarr at aq 1956 #ge thi atta sada & gat FX uw 21 fee fadtar Fana a veeatag at fe ararera fez afea gersBT FA ATL SHY 5 ATA, 1948 BY aT gam aca wTware FT F faq wat Hat ga qaraae & get F orevqearcatar facarfaa fear arta 22 maqaz, 1954 Ft arararetT 75,000 eat at ufe & fau dam gera st arated HFmat afer, ew ste far ar arr we fem sarge daw Feaat aeafeat at qar sak yar at saeilfe gat ak eaeUae F ga xzartera st ale fear ga grat qaedt 2 24Waqat, 1954 FY qaqa fee afew sera at foafaa wetey aa arafaal. ar aca eta ee aca aeaedt area afronfer frat atavara geet atét & fare fasta gera Ffave1955-56 aa frat ag&® faw omar fraferatamateat & ata gery 2aq tac,1922 #7 are 250 %att ated frat vat feat 24 wagax, 1974 B aearr AReT rat fea maT Me 25-T F mite ote aaah qagoa S oat weet qe mata at we) aie R waa aacafrerd = adterdt afer fafaa afeat & saa afafataafeu! sat arta 28 aaad, 1960 ara wok wee ara onye7q ae, 1922 at ae 25-0 ¥ ata ear TAT BT fear|ae. wrerra fear war 2 fe i962 af ag F azaz & for waare at orga fear qatar ate ame fafsa arate, weHeTaTa+39 SH,1965 at acart at feat afta at ot) gaaafeard % arte 28 watt, 1960 ae area ® fee aglaymam (Mitt) & ame ade crea a 7E, frat fala araraaara fadtaa araeeit fest ar ft aerr fear qar| fag weaage (ait) § atta30 faaray,1965 ae -aqt aieqaramitt afer we ahi 28 art, 1969 a wraaz atatafrre + Aged aftr arfer at A) 1955-56 de ae ®" faq feg alan gera Taree ar-frater far aot| fiealae Hera & frag onfeat & are. Fey tar oefaettaa 164 weada ara fara cfaet = [1977] 3 BAe fo qo afar wt F ey FT aay oe ten AT ae faaefnal %WTA 1965-66 aa ae ae Fe ast F fae frei aaa sahfraten fae ae a agaeea, atteredta sfeert gery caTaz,1922are 250 8 welta at we ardared F aferfafa oreat at aatet et ET 1955-56 A AT 1965-66 Aeat % fav fac aa faatent aot gat weal areal at fafiragare 7 aatdy 2a al sea arate a fee feet Great faasar rarer at alate & facta at oreewa: Sta ait a atafer fear ati afe ator 133(1) (a) F wele fat varRea20,000 era a afer a, gafae ailadt at ararerarm H gt vata wet at fear ari set fia F fanggran water F atte oer atass1 ada arfer wee ee, NARENDRAKUMARJ.MODI COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GUJARAT II, AHMED ABAD August 4, 1976 B [H. R. KHANNA, V. R. KRISHNA IYER AND N. L. UNTWALIA, JJ.j Income Tax A ct. 1922-Section 25-A (3 )-Claims for partition and disrup-tion of the Hindu Undivided Family disallowed by /.T.0.-Appeal under ther Act filed againsl the orders of I.T.O. also dismissed-No referorce 1111der the Act clzal/e11gi11g the Tribu11c./'s order di.lmissinl!' the appeal was taken, but .rnbse• que111ly got a preliminary decree for partition, passed by the civil court duri11g the pe11dc11cy of the appeal-Whether the Income Tax Awhorities are bou11d by C Liie s1d>.,eq11.c111 partition decree of the civil court. Right of ma11agement-Hi11du Law-Joi11t Hindu U11divided Fami/y-Whether a juliior member of the family can act m a karta ivit/1 tf1,, co11se11t of all the other members, if the senior member gives up his riplzt. Bapalal Purshottamdas Modi was the karta and head of a Hindu Undivided Family posse,sing many immovable properties and carrying on. business of various types including money lending. Bapalal had five sons, viz. Vadilal Ramanlal, Jayantilal, Gulabchand and Kanti!al; out of whom Ramanlal and Jayantilal predeceased him in 1933 and 1956 respectivelv and the app·~llant was one of the sons of Jayantilal. As per the general power of attorney dated 5.10-1948, executed by Bapalal in his favour, Gulabchand, the third son was acii'ng as a karta and wa~ filin0 the various tax returns without any objection what;oever by the other members of the Hindu Undivided Family. Bapalal relinquished all his rights in the joint family property on 22-lG-54 1~.aving the corpus of the joint family properties to his four surviving sons and Rajnikant, son of Ramanlal. All of them executed on 24-10-54, a memo of partition disrupting the Hindu Undivided Family and partitioning the properties. Irr the course of the proceeding' of' the income-tax af.sessment for the assessment year 1955-56 against the H.U.F. of Bapalal Purshottamlal Modi, an applica-tioh under s. 25A of the Income Tax. Act, 1922 claiming partition was made. The claim was disallowed by the I.T.O. by his order dat•ed 28-1-1960. Dur'ng the pendency of the appeal, a suit for partition was filed in 1961 and a decree for partition was obtained on June 30, 1965. The appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner wa' dismissed on September 30, 1965 and the second appeal 10 the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was also dismissed on March. 28. 1969. The appellants d'd not ask for a reference to the High Court, as provided under the Act, but went on filing the returns in respect of the· subs·equent assessment years. When the Income Tax Officer got attach·d 1h' entire amount i'n the Savings Bank A/c towards the tax liability bv an order dated May 12. 1970, the appellant filed a writ P'dition challenQ!ing the various orders passed in the proceedings under s. 25A for the assessment years 195$.66 to 1965-66 and the several attachment orders. Th·~ High Court dic1m'ssed the writ in /i111i11e, but granted a certificate under Art. 133(1)(b) of the Co'nstitu" ti on. Dismissing the appeal, the Court, HELD: (l) Sub section (3) of s. 25A provides that where an order accept· ing partition had not been passed in respect of a H'ndu Undivided Family assess-ed a<; undivided, such familv shall be deemed for the purpos-es of the Act to continue to be Hindu Undivided Family. The Income Tax Officers who had their own view to take, were not bound by the d1ecree, since in the instant case ihe partit'on preliminary decree came much later and there, wa~ no rPference under the Income Tax Act challenging the order of the Tribunal. [116 C-DJ (2) A junior member of the family can, with the consent of all the other members, act as a karta, if the senior' member give~ up his right. [116 El CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 156 of 1971. From the Judgment and Order dated 19-10-1970 of the Gujarat High Court in Special Civil Appln. No. 1177 /70.