LexKSHETR.A MOHAN-SANNYASI. CHARAN SADHUKHAN versus COMMISSIONER OF EXCESS PROFITS TAX, WEST BENGAL.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
268
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1954)
1953
both under sections 10 and 12, so we refrain from
C
·-. -.
if deciding the point. We may, however, point out in
omm"·''°"'' 0
•
th
. t
T
I"' d
El
. A
.
Incomc·tax
passmg
at m wo cases
ata , y ro-
ectric
gencies,
Madms'
Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay(') and Gam-
y.
missioner of Income-tax, Bombay Presidency v. Tata Sons
K 11. 111: T. T. Ltd.(') it was assumed that the managing agency is busi-
1 1
ThiayaraiaChetty ness but the point was directly decided in Inderchand
"
and Co.
H
. R
G
. .
,f I
t
U p
d
__
ari
am v.
ommissioner OJ
ncome- ax,
. . an
G!n//am HasanJ. G.P.( 3) that it is so.
1953
Oct. 20.
For the foregoing reasons, we accept the view taken
by Viswanatha Sastri J. and allow the appeals.
The
respondent shall pay the costs of the CommissiOner
both in this court and before the High Court.
Appeals allowed.
Agent for the appellant: G. H. Rajadhyaksha.
Agent for the respondent: S. Subra.manian.
KSHETR.A MOHAN-SANNYASI.
CHARAN SADHUKHAN
v.
COMMISSIONER OF EXCESS PROFITS TAX,
WEST BENGAL.
[PATAN.JALI SASTRI C.J., S.R. DAS, VIVIAN BosE,
GHULAM HASAN and BHAGWATI JJ.]
Excess Profits Tax Act (XV of 1940), s. 8(1)-PartnersMp bet.
• •
?veen kartas of two Iiindn 'lt,ndivided Janiilies-Death of lcartas-
.Partn.ership contin1terZ by sons-Nature of such partnership-Sepa-
rrttion of nie1nbers of each branch-Whether e:O'ects change in consti.
t.1t.fion of firtn-Oarry for1va1·d of deficiencies.
ThOugh a partnership entered into by the kartas of two Hindu
undivided fa.milies is popularly described as one between two Hindu
undivided families, .in the eye of the laW it is a partnership bet-
ween the two kartas, and the other members of the family do not
ipso facto become partners. It is open to the individual members
of a Hindu undivided fa.mily to enter into a pitrtnership with the
individual ine1nbers of another Hindu undivided family but in such
a case it cannot be called a partnership between two Hindu
undivided fa1nilies.
{r) [1937] 5 I.T.R. 202.
(3)
[r952] 22 I.T.R. 10S.
~ ·
(2)
[r939] 7 I.T.R r95.
S.C.R.
269
1953
Two separated brothers governed by the Dayabhaga school
of Hindu law, as kartas of their respective families, started a busi-
ness in partnersh.ip and carried it on for some years. In 1932 one Kshetra. Mohan
of them died and his four sons who were undivided amongst them- Sannyasi Ohasan
selves were admitted to the partnership.
The other brother also
Sadlmkhan
died in 1934 leaving four sons, and the sons of the two brothers
. v ..
thereafter continued the partnership, the members of each branch Commissioner. of
constituting a separate joint family as amongst themselves.
On Excess Profits
the 13th April, 1943, there was a severance of botb the families Ta.c, West Bengal.
inter se, and the business was carried on by the eight sons wbo
constituted themselves into a partnership with effect from tbe 14th
April. The Appellate Tribunal found that prior to the 14th April,
1943, the partnership was one between two Hindu undivided
families and from that date the partnership was one between eight
individual members of two disrupted families:
Held, (i) that, as the finding of the Appellate Tribunal was one
of fact it was not open to the assessees to contend that the partner-
ship before the 14th April, 1943, was also a partnership of eight
individuals; (ii) that on the facts as found by the Appellate Tri-
bunal there was on the 14th April, 1943, a change in the persons
carrying on. the business within the meaning of section 8 of the
Excess Profits Tax Act, and the deficiencies which occurred before
14tb April cannot be deducted from the excess profits o! the
succeeding chargeable accounting periods.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.
173of1952.
Appeal from Judgment and Order dated the 20th
day of June, 1951, of the High Court of Judicature at
Calcutta (Chakravartti and S. R. Das Gupta JJ.) in
Income-tax Reference No. 64 of 1950, arising out of
the Common Order dated the 25th day of July, 1949,
of the Court of Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in
E. P. T. A. Nos. 550, 551 and 552 of 1948-49.
N. 0. Ohatte1jee (A. K. Dutt, with him) for the
appellant.
0. K. Daphtary, Solicitor-General for India (G. N.
Joshi, with him) for the respondent.
1953.
October 20. The Judgment of the Court was
delivered by
DAS J.-This is an appeal from the judgment and
order pronoExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.