| Case ID |
0a678813-1206-4769-88d8-2c12cfd06796 |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
MISCELLANEOUS JUDICIAL CASE NO 1097 OF 196 |
| Decision Date |
Feb 03, 1966 |
| Hearing Date |
|
| Decision |
The business 'Chandmull Rajgarhia' was rightly taken to be of the assessee and not of the Hindu undivided family. The Tribunal's determination that the status of the assessee was individual in relation to the income from the business has been upheld. The assessment years from 1929-30 to 1953-54 indicated the income was assessed as an individual. The claims made by the assessee regarding the business being part of the joint family were not substantiated. The introduction of funds from joint family sources did not equate to a blending of interests without clear evidence of intent to merge. The ruling emphasized that mere confusion of accounts does not imply blending unless the intention is evident. |
| Summary |
This case revolves around the assessment of income tax for the year 1954-55 concerning the status of Chandmull Rajgarhia. The core issue was whether the income derived from the business 'Chandmull Rajgarhia' should be treated as belonging to the Hindu undivided family (HUF) or as an individual asset of the petitioner. The Patna High Court ruled that the business was indeed the personal property of the petitioner. The court clarified that while an undivided member of a joint Hindu family can own separate property, the mere introduction of joint family funds into an individual business does not automatically lead to a presumption of blending unless there is clear evidence of intent to merge. The ruling underlined the importance of intention in determining the ownership of the business and the assessment of income tax, thereby setting a precedent for future cases regarding the blending of individual and joint family properties. |
| Court |
Patna High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
Not available
|
| Judges |
H. Mahapatra,
S.N.P. Singh
|
| Lawyers |
Lalnarain Sinha,
H.L Agarwal,
K Bhutaria,
Bishwanath Agarwal,
Tarkeshwar Prasad,
S.N. Dutta,
Mrs. Leila Seth
|
| Petitioners |
Chandmull Rajgarhia
|
| Respondents |
Commissioner of Income tax
|
| Citations |
1967 SLD 567,
(1967) 66 ITR 347
|
| Other Citations |
Chattanatha Karayalar v. Ramachandra Iyer AIR 1955 SC 799,
Lakkireddi Chinna Venkata Reddi v. Lakkireddi Lakshmana AIR 1963 SC 160,
Lal Bahadur v. Kanhaiya Lal (1907) LR 34 IA 65,
Mallesappa Bandeppa Desai v. Desai Mallappa alias Mallesappa AIR 1961 SC 1268,
Rajanikanta Pal v. Jagamohan Pal AIR 1923 PC 57,
Suraj Narain v. Ratan Lal 40 IC 988; AIR 1917 PC 12
|
| Laws Involved |
Income-tax Act, 1961
|
| Sections |
4
|