- (1.) The assessee is a Hindu undivided family. Till June, 1947, the assessee was carrying on business in jewellery at Lahore. The assessee started a jewellery shop at Delhi in the name and style of "Roshan Dil Hatti". On 31.03.1948, a credit entry of Rs. 3,33,414.00 was made in the books of account of the assessee as capital of the business Rs. 2,92,340.00 being the value of gold ornaments, gold bullion and precious stones, and Rs. 41,074.00 being cash.
(2.) It appears that the assessee was never assessed to income-tax till 1956, either at Lahore or at Delhi. Pursuant to information received by him, the Income-tax Officer-cum-Wealth-tax Officer, circle -11, New Delhi, commenced proceedings for assessment for the year 1948-49, and subsequent years and called upon the assessee to explain the nature and source of the capital introduced into the business. The assessee submitted that the assets entered as capital in the books of account were brought at the time of migration of the assessee from Lahore. The Income-tax Officer held that the assessee had only brought assets of the value of Rs. 20,000.00 on migration from Lahore to Delhi and on that footing treated the balance of the capital introduced into the business on 31.03.1946, as income from undisclosed sources. In appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, the assessee, relying upon information conveyed to the Income-tax Officer on 10.09.1959, that " partition had taken place of the assessee's family business on 31.03.1958, and since 01.04.1958, the business named and styled as Messrs. Roshan-Di-Hatti is a partnership consisting of Roshan Lal, Baldev Krishan and Om Prakash", contended that there being at the date of the order of assessment no Hindu undivided family in existence, the order of assessment was unauthorised. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner rejected that contention, because in his view there was no evidence to prove disruption of the joint status of the family, and also because the partition set up was partial. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner, however, estimated the assets brought by the assessee from Lahore at Rs. 1,00,000.00 and modified the order of assessment and directed assessment of Rs. 2,33,414.00 as income from undisclosed sources. The Income-tax Appellate tribunal confirmed the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner without deciding whether there was disruption of the joint status of the assessee - family as claimed by the assessee. The tribunal observed that there was no formal application for an order u/s. 25A during the previous year, but only a claim for partial partition was made long after the previous year and in the circumstances the question of partition under sec. 25A could not be agitated at all before the tribunal. In the view of the tribunal, when partition is alleged, the question can only be agitated u/s. 25A.
(3.) The Income-tax Appellate tribunal, at the instance of the assessee, referred the following question' to the High court of Punjab under sec. 66(1): " Whether in all the facts and circumstances aforesaid, the assessment was validly made on the assessee Hindu undivided family ";