COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX VS RAVABAN B. MISTRY
2001 P T D 2441
[248 I T R 184]
[Supreme Court of India]
Present: S. P. Bharucha, Y. K. Sabharwal and Ms. Ruma Pal, JJ
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME‑TAX
Versus
Smt. RAVABAN B. MISTRY
C.A. No.3317 of 1990, decided on 24/08/2000.
(Appeal from the judgment and order, dated November 26, 1987, of the Gujarat High Court in I. T. R. No. 19 of 1986).
Income‑tax‑‑‑
‑‑‑‑Total income‑‑‑Inclusions in total income‑‑‑Income of spouse of assessee from firm‑‑‑Husband of assessee partner in a firm in a representative capacity as Karta of HUF‑‑‑Share income of husband of assessee from firm was not includible in total income of assessee‑‑‑Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, S.64.
Against the judgment of the High Court holding that the Tribunal was right in law in coming to the conclusion that the amount coming to the share of the husband of the assessee, in a representative capacity as the Karta of the Hindu undivided family in a firm was not liable to be included in the income of the assessee under the provisions of section 64 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the Department preferred an appeal to the Supreme Court:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal.
CIT v. Shri Om Prakash (1999) 238 ITR 1044 (SC) fol.
Dinubhai Ishavarlal Patel v. K.D. Dixit; ITO (1979) 118 ITR 122 (Guj.) ref.
Ranbir Chandra., S.W.A. Quadri and Ms. Sushma Suri, Advocates for Appellant. .
Raj Kumar Mehta and Khwariakpam Nobin Singh, Advocates for Respondents.
ORDER
The High Court answered the following question in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue, following its judgment in Dinubhai Ishvarlal Patel v. K.D. Dixit, ITO (1979) 118 ITR 122 (Guj). The question reads thus:
"Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in coming to the conclusion that the amount coming to the share of the husband of the assessee, in a representative capacity as the karta of the Hindu undivided family in the firm of Morvi Time Company was not liable to be included in the income of the assessee under the provisions of section 64 of the Income Tax Act, 1961?"
The question is now covered against the Revenue by the decision of the Constitution Bench of this Court in CIT v. Shri Om Prakash (1999) 238 ITR 1044. The appeal is; therefore, dismissed.
No order as to costs.
M.B.A./945/FC?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Appeal dismissed.