JUDGMENT

1. The question referred to us by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal u/s 66(1) of the Indian Income Tax Act is as follows:

Whether on the facts found by the Tribunal Dina Nath and Amarnath as the respective members of Earn Bharosey and Ram Sarup's branches could represent and bind the other members of their Hindu undivided family under the partnership entered into by them with Har Prasad, an outsider, under the deed of partnership dated 1st February, 1944?

2. It is difficult to understand how this question arose and why it was referred to us for answer.

3. The facts were that one Kedar Nath had two sons Ram Bharosey and Bam Sarup. Bach of them had three sons. Ram Bharosey and Ram Sarup were separate but were joint with their sons. The members of the family were carrying on business in the name and style of Kedar Nath Ram Bharosey which was a registered firm of which Ram Bharosey and his sons and Ram Sarup and his sons were members. In the year 1943-44 a new business was started under the style of Mangalchand Mohanlal. From the deed of partnership it appeared that Amarnath owned a share of five annas, Dina Nath five annas and Har Prasad, an outsider, six annas in this business.