JUDGMENT
1. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi has referred the following questions under Section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinaftercalled 'the Act')-
1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was legally correct in holding that the adoption of Shri Narendra Kumar by Dr. S.P. Bhatnagar, the assessee was a valid adoption?
2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was legally correct in holding that the declaration dated 1-4-1966 impressing the sum of Rs. 10,000 with the character of Hindu Undivided Family was a valid declaration?
3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was legally correct in holding that the share income from the firm M/s. Rohit and Company (India) was not assessable in the hands of the D assessee in his individual capacity?
2. The dispute relates to the assessment year 1970-71. The assessee is an individual deriving income from medical profession and is a partner- in the firm M/s. Rohit and Company in Roorkee.
3. The contention of the assessee is that he was partner as a karta of his family and, therefore, the share income of the above firm was the income of his HUF. The Income Tax Officer, in the reassessment proceedings for f? the relevant assessment year, added the share income of M/s. Rohit and Company in the hands of the assessee, treating it as his income.
4. Assessment order has been set aside by the first Appellate Authority which has been confirmed by the Tribunal on the ground that income of the firm M/s. Rohit and Company, Roorkee cannot be added in the income of the assessee as an individual.
5. Since consistently it has been held by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal p for various assessment years that income of the firm is not liable to be added in the income of the assessee which is a question depending on fact and also there is nothing on record to show that High Court has taken different view in the matter of the assessee, we answer all the three questions referred to us in affirmative, Le., in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. Since none appears on behalf of the assessee no order as to cost.