1978 Supreme(SC) 186
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
P.N. Bhagwati, V.D. Tulzapurkar, JJ.
M/s. Y.L. Agarwalla and others – Appellant
Versus
Commissioner of Income-tax Central Calcutta – Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 1112 of 1976
Decided On : 27-07-1978
Advocate Appeared
M/s. S. T. Desai and V. D. Desai, Sr. Advs. (M/s. Sanjay Bhattacharya, P. K. Dhar, Sardar Amzad Ali and Rathin Das, Advs, with them), for Appellants; Mr. S. V. Gupte, Att. Gen. (M/s. R. N. Sachthey, K. C. Dua and Miss A. Subhashini, Advs, with him), for Respondent.
Headnote:
Constitution of India, 1950 - transaction - Deed of partnership - Partnership business - Since died on December Before expiry year of account firm which was from firm closed its accounts on December surviving partners after admitting three minor sons to benefits thereof continued to carry on business partnership with effect from December new deed of partnership was executed by surviving partners on January terms and conditions whereof were made effective from December - This new deed each one of three minor sons was given share in profits of firm as also right to become fully fledged partner on his attaining majority - Clause of deed ensured to firm continued use of capital of Hindu undivided family standing in account of late free of interest –Held, In instant case question raised before us gets easily answered by applying subsidiary principles indicated at above as well as by applying broader principle indicated above - There can be no doubt that share income that was received by three minor sons during relevant period was earned with aid and assistance of Hindu undivided family funds and was directly related to utilization of such funds by firm and further that Hindu undivided family had suffered detriment in process of realization of such income inasmuch as capital amount lying to credit of deceased was utilized by firm free of interest - Further in this case there was no question of any services being rendered by three minors and therefore share income received by them must in substance be regarded as return made to family because of investment of family funds in business - In our view therefore taxing authorities as also Tribunal and High Court were right in assessing said income in hands of Hindu undivided family assesses - Appeal dismissed
JUDGMENT
TULZAPURKAR, J. :— This appeal by special leave raises an important question as to whether the sum of Rupees 3,08,187, being the share income of three minor sons from the firm of M/s. Grand Smithy Works for the period from 16-12-1967 to 31-8-1968 is liable to be assessed as the income of the Hindu undivided family - M/s. Y. L. Agarwalla and Company - for the assessment year 1969-70 ?
2. The facts giving rise to the question may briefly be stated as follows: One Yudhisthir Lal Agarwalla, since deceased, was the Karta of a Hindu undivided family known as M/s. Y. L. Agarwalla and Co. (The assessee herein). During his lifetime in his capacity as the Karta of the said Hindu undivided family he carried on business in partnership with three others (Shiv Charan Laul, Ram Gopal Garodia and Tula Ram Budhia) in the name and style of M/s. Grand Smithy Works. His share in that firm was 36%. Under Cl. 13 of the Partnership Deed dated September 20, 1961, pursuant to which the said firm used to carry on its business, it was provided that "the death or retirement of any of the partners shall not have the effect of dissolving this co-partnership; in such an eventuality the co-partnership business may be carried on between the surviving partners and the heirs/legal representatives of the deceased and or retiring partner or if mutually agreed upon between the surviving partners and heirs etc. of the deceased or retiring partner with outsiders also." Yudhisthir Lal died on December 18, 1967 leaving behind him his widow Smt. Bhagwati Devi, six daughters (three married and three unmarried out of whom two were minors) and three minor sons. By two letters both dated January 11, 1968, one addressed by the widow on behalf of herself and the Hindu undivided family and the other by the four major daughters, Smt. Bhagwati Devi and the four major daughters declined to exercise the option reserved to them under Cl. (13) of the deed and refused to join the partnership business; however, the three minor sons were admitted to the benefits of the partnership. Since Yudhisthir Lal died on December 18, 1967 i.e. before the expiry of the year of account of the firm which was from 1-9-1967 to 31-8-1968, the firm closed its accounts on December 18, 1967 and the surviving partners after admitting the three minor sons to the benefits thereof continued to carry on the business of the partnership with effect from December 19,1967 and a new deed of partnership was executed by the surviving partners on January 11, 1968 the terms and conditions whereof were made effective from December 19, 1967. Under this new deed each one of the three minor sons of Yudhisthir Lal was given 14% share in the profits of the firm, as also a right to become a full-fledged partner on his attaining majority. Clause 6 of the deed ensured to the firm the continued use of the capital of Hindu undivided family standing in the account of late Yudhisthir Lal free of interest.
3. For the assessment year 1969-70, (the relevant accounting period being 1-9-1967 to 31-8-1968) Smt. Bhagwati Devi Agarwalla filed the return on be half of Hindu undivided family disclosing the share income from the firm of Grand Smithy Works for the period from September 1, 1967 to December 18, 1967 only i.e. up to the date when her husband was alive and was a partner in that firm. It was claimed that with effect from December 19, 1967 the Hindu undivided family of which her husband was the Karta and after whose death she was managing the affairs had no interest in the said firm and that her three minor sons were admitted to the benefits of partnership in their individual and personal capacity as agreed to between the three surviving partners of that firm and, therefore, the share income of the firm received by her three minor sons for the period December 19, 1967 to August 31, 1968, amounting to Rs. 3,08,187, could not be included in the income of the Hindu undivided family and assessed as such. The Income-tax Officer n