JAWAHAR LAL GUPTA, J. - (1.) THE dispute relates to the asst. year 1985 86. The assessee filed the return on 27th March, 1987, declaring an income of Rs. 15,610. The AO made an addition on account of income from property and fixed the taxable income at Rs. 30,490. The respondent assessee filed an appeal. It was accepted by the CIT(A), vide order dt. 22nd Nov., 1993. It was held that the income from property could not be added to the assessee's individual income but it was to be treated as due to the HUF. The Revenue filed an appeal before the Tribunal. It was dismissed, vide order dt. 31st Dec., 1998. Hence, this appeal.
(2.) MR . R. P. Sawhney, learned counsel for the Revenue, contends that the Tribunal has proceeded on the assumption that for the asst. year 1983 84, the income from the property was to be assessed in the name of the HUF and not that of the assessee. A copy of the order passed by the Tribunal in respect of the asst. year 1983 84 has been produced by the counsel to show that the assumption is wrong. Mr. Jhingan, learned counsel for the respondent, accepts that the income from the property had to be assessed in the name of two brothers. But this was to be in equal shares and not in the name of one of the brothers only. On this basis, counsel maintains that the stand of the Revenue is not correct.
(3.) THE matter is of a trivial nature. However, it is clear that the income from the property had to be shared by both the brothers. Thus, the addition of the total income against the respondent was not warranted. The Tribunal's decision to that extent was correct. The question is answered accordingly. No costs.;