The Order of the Court was pronounced by

Rajagopala Ayyangar, J.-

The question referred to us, for decision under section 66(1) of the Income-tax Act, is:

“In the absence of any other evidence, is the recital in the partnership deed of the 20th April, 1947, in respect of the General Commercial Distributors enough for drawing the inference that the moneys invested by the assessee in the business carried on by him, came out of funds belonging to the undivided family consisting of the assessee and his minor son.”

The facts giving rise to the reference may be shortly stated. Subramania Ayyar, the assessee, quarrelled with his father and came out of the family in or about April 1944. With some moneys given to him by his father after the separation, and by his mother, he started a concern called the General Commercial Corporation in September, 1944. The partners in this concern were Subramania Ayyar and one M.S.Ramamoorthy Ayyar. This was wound up on the 31st March, 1947, and a new firm called the General Commercial Distributors came into being on and from the 1st April, 1947, with M.S.Ramamoorthy Ayyar and his son, one Sundaram Ayyar, holding a quarter share each and the assessee Subramania Ayyar and his wife Lakshmi Ammal holding the other one-fourth share each. Subramania Ayyar contributed a capital of Rs.350 and his wife Rs.600 while Ramamoorthy Ayyar and his son did not make any contribution of capital. A partnership deed was entered into in respect of this firm on the 20th April, 1947 and this Subramania Ayyar, the assessee, was described as “representing his undivided family hereinafter called the party of the second part”. It might be mentioned that the undivided family at this date consisted only of the assessee and a minor son who was born in April, 1944. For the assessment year 1948-49 the assessee submitted two returns, one as an individual wherein he returned an income of Rs.50 being sitting fee, received as a Director, and another return as the manager of the joint family and in this capacity he returned the fourth share of the income which he got from the General Commercial Distributors. The Income-tax Officer refused to accept these returns and treated the income returned as the manager of the undivided Hindu family as part of the income of Subramania Ayyar, the in-dividual assessee. The assessee was called on to explain how he treated himself as the manager of an undivided Hindu family in entering into this business. His explanation consisted of two parts. The first was that the sum of Rs.350 which had been contributed by him as his share capital for the General Commercial Distributors was ancestral property which had been obtained by him from his father. The second was that the declaration contained in the recital in the partnership deed of April, 1947, in which he had described himself as the manager of the joint undivided Hindu family, was sufficient to impress upon the business the character of a joint family business, such that its income would become the income of a Hindu undivided family. The Income-tax Officer did not accept the case put forward by the assessee as regards the source from which the Rs.350 had been obtained by him and he was of the opinion that this sum represented at the best a portion of the gifts from the assessee’s father and mother which would be self-acquired property in his hands. Dealing with the effect of the declaration contained in the recital in the partnership deed of April, 1947, the Income-tax Officer held that this was not sufficient to constitute the business as one belonging to a undivided Hindu family. The assessee filed an appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner who rejected the appeal and this was confirmed by the Tribunal on further appeal.

In our opinion it is not open to the assessee to canvass the correctness of the finding reached by the Income-tax Authorities and the Tribunal as regards the source from which the assessee was able to secure the Rs.350 and whether hi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document