- (1.) This order will dispose of Income Tax Cases Nos. 3 to 7 of 1973. These cases relate to assessment years 1963-64 to 1967-68. The facts in all these cases are the same and the questions of law required to be referred are also the same. It is for this reason that we have decided to deal with all these cases together and dispose of the same by a single order.
(2.) Prem Narain was carrying on business as an individual in the name of Meera and Company. Assessments were being made on that basis. He died on the 25th August, 1962, leaving behind his mother, widow Shrimati Krishna Gupta and two daughters and a son, all three being minors. The mother relinquished her interest on each payment with the result that the entire estate of Prem Narain, including the business of Meera and Company, vested in the widow and the three minor children in equal shares. After the death of Prem Narain, Smt. Krishna Gupta for herself and as guardian of her three minor children, carried on the business in the name of Meera & Co. She filed returns for the aforesaid assessment years in the status of association of persons. Later on, on the basis of legal advice these returns were revised, but the status was left unspecified. In the returns, the business in fact was shown of the four individuals in equal shares. The Income tax Officer treated the business as one and common unit and held that the status of these four persons was that of a body of individuals. He framed the assessments under Section 4, read with Section 2(31) (v) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assesses were dissatisfied and moved the Appellate Assistant Commissioner in appeal. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner treated the income from Meera and company, as assessable in the hands of Smt. Krishna Gupta as a person carrying on the business in her individual capacity. The matter was then taken to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal by the Revenue as well as by the assesses. The tribunal came to the conclusion that the assesses was a body of individuals, but the two members differed on the question as to whether the assessment had to be made under Section 4 and 2(31) (v) or under Sections 160, 161 or under Section 166 of the Act. In view of the difference of opinion, the matter was referred to the third member under Section 255(4). The third Member came to the conclusion that the assessee was liable to be assessed as an entity and, therefore, the Income Tax Officer's order was correct. The assessee then moved the Tribunal under Section 256(1) for referring then following questions of law for the opinion of this Court ? - "1. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, Mrs. Krishna Gupta and her three minor children constituted a 'Body of Individuals' so as to become an assessable entity for being assessed directly as such under the charging Section 4 read with Section 2(31) (v) of the Income tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 1963-64 to 1967-68 in respect of income derived from business carried on by Smt. Krishna Gupta for self and as guardian of her three minor children under the name and style of M/s Meera and Company ? 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, M/s. Meera & Co., was a 'Joint Enterprise' or 'Common Enterprise' to constitute a 'Body of Individuals' to produce income for the purpose of Income-Tax Act, 1961 ? 3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the Tribunal, having held that Smt. Krishna Gupta has been carrying on the business for self and as guardian of her three minor children, is justified in concluding that the business is run as an organic unity, therefore, M/s. Meera and Company, was a 'Body of Individuals' ? 4. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the income of the three minors should be carved out from the income of the 'Body of Individuals' and be assessed separately as to one-fourth each in the hands of Smt. Krishna Gupta as guardian under Sections 160, 161 or alternatively in the hands of minors under Section 166 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ? 5. Whether the Hon'ble Appellate Tribunal of Income-tax has any evidence on record to hold that the 'Body of Individuals' identified as 'Meera & Co., has carried on the business and earned the profits ? The tribunal, however, referred the following question of law for our opinion :- "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessment of he body of individuals identified as M/s. Meera and Company should be made under Section 4 read with Section 2(31) (v) and not under Sections 160, 161 or 166 ?"
(3.) The assessee then moved this Court under Section 256(2) of the Act and requires that the questions of law which the Tribunal and refused to refer, be referred for the opinion of this Court.;