MANU/SC/0170/1965

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal Nos. 38 and 39 of 1964

Assessment Year: 1950-1951

Decided On: 26.03.1965

Appellants: Commissioner of Income Tax, Madhya Pradesh, Nagpur and Bhandara Vs. Respondent: Seth Govindram Sugar Mills

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
J.C. Shah, K. Subba Rao and S.M. Sikri

JUDGMENT

K. Subba Rao, J.

1. These two appeals by certificate arise out of the judgment of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur, in Miscellaneous case No. 63 of 1961 from a reference under section 66(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bombay.

2. To appreciate the contention of the parties following genealogy will be useful :

3. After the death of Kalooram Todi, his two sons by name Govindram and Gangaprasad constituted a joint Hindu family which owned extensive property in Jaora State and a sugar mills called "Seth Govindram Sugar Mills" at Mahidpur Road in Holkar State. In the year 1942 Bachhulal filed a suit for partition against Govindram and obtained a decree therein. In due course the property was divided and a final decree was made. We are concerned in these appeals only with the sugar mills at Mahidpur Road. After the partition Govindram and Bachhulal jointly worked the sugar mills at Mahidpur Road. After the death of Govindram in 1943, Nandlal, the son of Govindram, and Bachhulal, as kartas of their respective joint families entered into a partnership on September, 28, 1943, to carry on the business of the said sugar mills. Nandlal died on December 9, 1945, leaving behind him the members of his branch of the joint family, namely, the three widows and the two minor sons down in the genealogy. After the death of Nandlal Bachhulal carried on the business of the Sugar Mills in the name of "Seth Govindram Sugar Mills". For the assessment year 1950-51, the said firm applied for registration on the basis of the agreement of partnership dated September 28, 1943. The Income-tax Officer refused to register the partnership on the ground that after the death of Nandlal the partnership was dissolved and thereafter Bachhulal and the minors could be treated only as an association of persons. On that footing he made another order assessing the income of the business of the firm as that of an association of persons. Against the said orders, two appeals-one being Appeal No. 21 of 1955-56 against the order refusing registration and the other being Appeal No. 24 of 1955-56 against the order of assessment - were filed to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner dismissed both the appeals. In the appeal against the order of assessment, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner exhaustively considered the question whether there was any partnership between the members of the two families after the death of Nandlal and came to the conclusion that in fact as well as in law such partnership did not exist. Two separate appeals, being Income-tax Appeal No. 8328 of 1957-58 and Income-tax Appeal No. 8329 of 1957-58, preferred to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal against the orders of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner were dismissed. The assessee made two applications to the Tribunal for referring certain questions of law to the High Court, but they were dismissed. Thereafter, at the instance of the assessee the High Court directed the Tribunal to submit the following two questions for its decision and it accordingly did so:

(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the status of the assessee, 'Seth Govindram Sugar Mills, Mahidpur Road, Proprietor Nandlal Bachhulal, Jaora, is an association of persons or a firm within the meaning of sections 16(1)(b) of the Income-tax Act ?