- (1.) AT the instance of the Revenue, the Tribunal referred the following question , relating to the asst. yrs. 1975-76 and 1976-77 for the opinion of the Court; "Whether on the fact statement of the case by the Tribunal was legally correct in holding that only 40 per cent share in the income of the firm Chamanlal Mohinder Prakash should be included in the assessment of the assessee -HUF instead of the entire income of the above firm ?"
(2.) THE facts as stated in the 'statement of the case' by the Tribunal are that the assessee is an HUF headed by its Karta. He filed returns of income showing Rs. 10,890 for the asst. yr. 1975-76 and Rs. 9,700 for the asst. yr. 1976-77 The HUF disclosed, inter alia share income from the firm Chamanlal Mohinder Prakash the ITO following his order relating to the asst. yr. 1975-76 in the case of the said firm assessed the entire income from that firm in the hands of the HUF. On appeal the AAC held that the entire income of the firm could no be included in the hands of the HUF. The Karta of the HUF was partner in the aforesaid firm having 40 per cent share. On further appeal, the Tribunal held that only 40 per cent share income from the firm could be assessed in the hands of the HUF.
(3.) UNDISPUTED fact is that the Karta represented his HUF in the assessee firm having only 40 per cent share. On these facts, it is obvious that only income falling to the share of the HUF could be assessed in the hands of the HUF and not the entire income of the firm;.;