In the appeal in one of the matters the registered partnership firm has a husband and wife as partners. In the other matters, uterine brothers constitute the partnership firm in each case, Going by the dictum in CIT v. Mahari & Sons (1992) 106 CTR (Gau) 229: (1992) 195 ITR 630 (Gau) and, particularly, the interpretation of the concept of family made therein, it would appear that an association, even if it be a partnership, between a husband and wife or between a brother and another, would be entitled to the same exemption as any of the partners would in their individual capacity. It cannot also be missed that the rule which has been enunciated in Mahari & Sons has held the field for more than three decades and persons may have organised their businesses in accordance therewith.Court hheld that there is no doubt that the Tribunal noticed the dictum in CIT v. Mahari & Sons in the common order impugned and, in effect, held that such rule was per incuriam or, at any rate, no longer good law in view of subsequent Supreme Court pronouncements. However, the exercise appears to have been done in a rather cavalier manner without covering the entire gamut of the discussion possible on the issue. At any rate, none of the Supreme Court judgments referred to in the order impugned by the Tribunal expressly deals with the situation covered by Mahari & Sons. The general dicta pertaining to interpretation of a taxing statute and an exemption clause contained in a taxing statute have been relied upon by the Tribunal in the order impugned to come to a conclusion that the principle enunciated in Mahari & Sons no longer holds the field. Balancing both sides-the fact that the dictum in Mahari & Sons has held the field for three decades and the recognition that the order impugned has been rendered by a specialised Tribunal-it is deemed fit and proper to remand the matter before the Tribunal with a request to the President of the Tribunal to constitute a Larger Bench without including either member who was a party to the order impugned, for the consideration of the entire gamut of the matter.
Ri Kynjai Serenity By The Lake. v. PCIT (2023) 334 CTR 890 (Meghalaya) ( HC) Hotel Centre Point. v. PCIT (2023) 334 CTR 890 (Meghalaya) ( HC)
S. 10(26) : Schedule Tribes-Income of member of Scheduled Tribe-Individual-Special Bench-Family-Matter remanded to the Tribunal with a request to the President of the Tribunal to constitute a Larger Bench without including either member who was a party to the order for the consideration of the entire gamut of the matter. [S. 2(31), 184, 254(1), 255, 260A]