Beg, C. J. - (1.) The appellant, a Hindu Undivided Family, is before us by special leave through its Karta Tolaram. The statement ofthe case shows that Narmal, who died in the year 1945, left three sons, Srinivas, Nathmal and Tolaram Narmal had carried on an Hindu undivided family business started round about 1925. It appears that the name of the business was changed to Nathmal Tolaram from 1936-37 and that the income of the business was assessed as Hindu Undivided Family income since then. The previous records do not seem to be very clear. but, from the year 1942 to 1950, the income of this business was certainly assessed as Hindu Undivided Family income. It was partitioned with effect from 6th April. 1949. After the partition, the business carried on at two places, Dhubri and Gauripore, was converted into a partnership business evidenced by a deed of partnership executed between the three brothers on 7th April, 1949. In this deed, it was admitted that the business had been carried on previous to the partition as Hindu Undivided Family business.
(2.) On 19th September, 1950, an application was made under section 25A the Income Tax Act, 1922, to record and register the partition. This was done on 17th August, 1954. On 29th March. 1959, the firm of M/s. Nathmal Tolaram was dissolved and a new firm Nathmal Tolaram (Petrol Depot) came into existence. In the assessment year 1959-60 Tolaram claimed that his share in the partnership business should be assessed separately as his individual income. His claim was rejected by the Income-tax Officer, but was accepted in appeal.
(3.) We than come to the relevant assessment year 1960-61, when Tolaram made a similar claim to separate assessment of income derived from the partnership business in petrol amounting Rs. 21,746/-. The Income-tax Officer rejected this claim. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner also, on an appeal, after reviewing the entire set of facts and circumstances in the light of fresh materials which were available, affirmed the order of the Income-tax Officer rejecting the claim of the appellant. The Incometax Tribunal and then the High Court also affirmed this position.;