Cwt Vs. Jitendra Kumar (Huf)

counsels: shambhoo chopra, for the revenue. shakeel ahmad, for the assessee head note: income tax wealth tax huf or individual wealth --capital to credit of assessee along with share of profit in firmheld: capital standing to the credit of assessee along with share of profit in the firm and its accretion was individual income of the assessee was not assessable in the hands of assessee in the status of huf. wealth tax act, 1957 s.3 in the allahabad high court r.k. agrawal and prakash krishna, jj. - indian penal code, 1860 [c.a. no. 45/1860]. section 302; [m.c. jain, r.c. deepak & k.k. misra, jj] murder plea as to accused being minor school register and transfer certificate not proved before court according to law held, it has to be ignored and question of age is to be determined on other evidence and circumstances surfacing on record. age determined on the basis of x-ray plates and report prepared by c.m.o., is the correct age of accused. accused was declared to be child on the date of commission of offence of murder. however, considering fact that now accused was around 41 years, he cannot be sent to approved school. accused was directed to pay fine of rs.25,000/- under section 302 i.p.c., amount of fine was directed to be paid as compensation to wife of deceased. mohammadorderthe income tax appellate tribunal, allahabad, has referred the following question of law under section 27(1) of the wealth tax act, 1957 (hereinafter refer-red to as 'the act') for opinion to this court:'whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the tribunal was justified in holding that the capital standing to the credit of jitendra kumar in m/s. ratan cold storage along with the share of jitendra kumar in the appreciation of the value of the assets of m/s. ratan cold storage is not assessable in the hands of the assessee in the status of huf?'2. the reference relates to the assessment years 1982-83 to 1985-86.3. we have heard sri shambhoo chopra, the learned standing counsel for the revenue and sri shakeel ahmed, learned counsel for the appearing for the respondent.4. the facts of the present case are similar to that of itr no. 209 of 1988, itr no. 62 of 1988 and wtr no. 70 of 1980 decided on 6-1-2005. this court has held that the share of profit in the firm and its accretion was an individual income of the respondent jitendra kumar and not assessable to the huf.5. respectfully following the aforesaid decision, we answer the question referred to us in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. however, there shall be no order as to costs.