Cit Vs. Shyamlal - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
counsels: a.n. mahajan, for the revenue in the allahabad high court sudir narain & d.p. gupta, jj. - land acquisition act, 1894 [c.a. no. 1/1894]. section 4; [sushil harkauli, s.k. singh & krishna murari, jj] acquisition of land held, court cannot issue a writ of mandamus directing the state authorities to acquire a particular land. land acquisition is not purely ministerial act to be performed by executive no direction in nature of mandamus whether interim or final can be issued by court under article 226 necessarily to acquire particular land in public interest. land acquisition is not a purely ministerial act to be performed by the executive and therefore, no mandamus can be issued by the court in exercise of its power under article 226 of the constitution, whether suo motu or otherwise, whether in public interest litigation or otherwise directing acquisition of land under the provisions of land acquisition act, 1894. it would, however, be open to the court in exercise of that power to invite the attention of the executive to any public purpose and the need for land for meeting that public purpose and to require the executive to take a decision, even a reasoned decision, with regard to the same in accordance with the statutory provisions, perhaps even within a reasonable time frame. however, the power of the court under article 226 must necessarily stop at that. thereafter, if the decision taken by the executive is capable of challenge and, there exist appropriate legal grounds for such challenge, it may also be open to the court to quash the decision and to require reconsideration. but no direction in the nature of mandamus whether interim or final can be issued by the court under article 226 to the executive to necessarily acquire a particular area of a particular piece of land for a particular public purpose. section 4; compulsory acquisition of land powers of state government held, renewal of lease in favour of petitioners would not take away power of state government of compulsory acquisition of land. renewal of lease would at best be taken into consideration for determining quantum of compensation. orderheard sri a.n. mahajan, learned counsel for the applicant.2. the following questions have been referred to this court by the tribunal :'1. whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the tribunal was legally correct in holding that the share income from the firm m/s. gordhan dass mahender kumar should not be computed in the hands of the assessee ?2. whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the tribunal was legally correct in observing that the share income from m/s. sisona gur and khandsari udyog in the names of shyamlal surender kumar and jitender kumar, smt. vidya devi cannot be considered as income in the hands of the assessee 3. whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the tribunal was legally correct in holding that the interest income from the firm m/s. gordhandas mahender kumar in the name of shyamlal surender kumar and in the name of jitender kumar vidya devi cannot be included in the hands of the assessee ?'3. the assessee is a hindu undivided family and it consists of its karta shri shyamlal, his wife smt. vidya devi and his two sons, surender kumar and jitender kumar. in the assessment year 1977-78 the income tax officer included the share income from the firm m/s. gordhandass mohinder kumar, muzaffarnagar, amounting to rs. 42,447 the share income from the firm m/s. sisona gur and khandsari udyogin the names of shyamlal, surender kumar, jitender kumar, vidya devi amounting to rs. 20,552 and rs. 20,553 respectively, and the interest income from the firm m/s. gordhandass mohinder kumar amounting to rs. 1,066 in the name of shri shyamlal surender kumar and amounting to rs. 3,795 in the name of jitender kumar, vidya devi.4. the assessee preferred an appeal. the commissioner (appeals), meerut, deleted the addition and accepted the partial partition.5. the department preferred an appeal before the appellate tribunal and the tribunal dismissed the appeal.6. the basic question in these matters is whether partial partition was valid. the partial partition shall be taken to be valid even if the share of each member of each group of the family has not been defined, as held in the cit v. shyam lal 2001 uptc 777.7. in view of the aforesaid decision, the questions referred to above are decided in the affirmative and against the commissioner.8. the reference application is, accordingly, disposed of finally.the parties shall bear their own costs.

Judgment:
ORDER

Heard Sri A.N. Mahajan, learned counsel for the Applicant.

2. The following questions have been referred to this court by the Tribunal :

'1. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally correct in holding that the share income from the firm M/s. Gordhan Dass Mahender Kumar should not be computed in the hands of the assessee ?

2. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally correct in observing that the share income from M/s. Sisona Gur and Khandsari Udyog in the names of Shyamlal Surender Kumar and Jitender Kumar, Smt. Vidya Devi cannot be considered as income in the hands of the assessee

3. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally correct in holding that the interest income from the firm M/s. Gordhandas Mahender Kumar in the name of Shyamlal Surender Kumar and in the name of Jitender Kumar Vidya Devi cannot be included in the hands of the assessee ?'

3. The assessee is a Hindu Undivided Family and it consists of its karta Shri Shyamlal, his wife Smt. Vidya Devi and his two sons, Surender Kumar and Jitender Kumar. In the assessment year 1977-78 the Income Tax Officer included the share income from the firm M/s. Gordhandass Mohinder Kumar, Muzaffarnagar, amounting to Rs. 42,447 the share income from the firm M/s. Sisona Gur and Khandsari Udyogin the names of Shyamlal, Surender Kumar, Jitender Kumar, Vidya Devi amounting to Rs. 20,552 and Rs. 20,553 respectively, and the interest income from the firm M/s. Gordhandass Mohinder Kumar amounting to Rs. 1,066 in the name of Shri Shyamlal Surender Kumar and amounting to Rs. 3,795 in the name of Jitender Kumar, Vidya Devi.

4. The assessee preferred an appeal. The Commissioner (Appeals), Meerut, deleted the addition and accepted the partial partition.

5. The department preferred an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal and the Tribunal dismissed the appeal.

6. The basic question in these matters is whether partial partition was valid. The partial partition shall be taken to be valid even if the share of each member of each group of the family has not been defined, as held in the CIT v. Shyam Lal 2001 UPTC 777.

7. In view of the aforesaid decision, the questions referred to above are decided in the affirmative and against the Commissioner.

8. The reference application is, accordingly, disposed of finally.

The parties shall bear their own costs.