PADAMPAT SINGHANIA Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX NO 2

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A number cf references, some under the Income-tax Act and others under the Excess Profits Tax Act, have been lumped up together and numbered as above. During the course of argument, with the consent of learned counsel, we found it necessary to number the cases separately and Miscellaneous Case No. 139 of 1948, was confined only to the reference under Section 66 (1), Income-tax Act in Reference Application No. 226 of 1947-48 before the appellate Tribunal, which related to the income of the firm Harishankar Gopal Hari.

(2.) THE question referred to us in this reference is as follows:

(3.) THE law is now well settled that it is open to a member of a Hindu undivided family to carry on a business and there is no presumption that any such business belongs to the joint family (see -- 'Annamalai Chetty v. Subramanian Chetty', AIR 1959 PC 1 (A). In that case a member of a joint family had been engaged actively in money-lending business. With the income of that business he acquired some property and the question was whether that property could be held to be joint family property. THEir Lordships of the Judicial Committee held that: