TMI Blog1976 (8) TMI 80X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ded family incomes from properties and capital gains were admitted. The assessments in the individual status were completed on 6th August 1971 and 21st January 1973 respectively. In the assessment proceedings taken in respect of the return filed by the assessee in the status of Hindu undivided family for the assessment years 1971-72 and 1972-73 the Income-tax Officer took the view that the income and capital gains arising in respect of the properties said to belong to the joint family really belonged to the assessee in his individual capacity only. He, therefore, initiated action under s. 147(a) of the Act for the said two assessment years to include the above income from property and capital gains in the individual assessments of the asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... terial facts necessary for the assessment, the income had escaped assessment and, therefore, the Income-tax Officer was justified in initiating action under s. 147(a) of the Act. On merits the Appellate Assistant Commissioner agreed with the Income-tax Officer that the income included in the capital gains derived by the assessee out of the properties stated to belong to the Hindu undivided family should be assessed in the status of individual following the ruling of the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras vs. M.R.M. Ramaswamy Chettiar (1). For the assessment year 1973-74 the Appellate Assistant Commissioner rejected the assessee s contentions following his order passed for the earlier two assessment years. 4. A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and 452 . 6. We have carefully considered the rival submissions and the rulings cited by the parties. At the outset we would like to dispose of the contention of the assessee about the validity of the assessments made under s. 147 for the assessment years 1971-72 and 1972-73. We are in agreement with the finding of the Appellate Asst. Commissioner that the assessments were properly made. As pointed out by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner the assessee had admitted only salary income in the returns filed in his individual status and there was no indication whatsoever about the income that arose to the H.U.F. and that only after perusing the return filed by the assessee in the status of Hindu undivided family the Income-tax Officer came ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rties were divided between himself and his son. Under the will dated 24th February, 1964, as pointed out, above, Shri Gopalaswami had bequeathed his half share in the two house properties which belonged to the joint family originally. Shri Gopalaswami died in February, 1965. After the death of Shri Gopalaswami the assessee being his only son became the sole surviving coparcener (his sisters having gone out of the family by marriage) in respect of the ancestral properties that fell to the share of Shri K. Gopalaswami in the division that took place in 1956. So far as this half share of the properties is concerned, it unmistakably belongs to the joint family of the assessee, his wife and his two daughters. In respect of the other half share w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ve the assessee constituted a Hindu undivided family of himself, his wife and two daughters vide the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Narendranath vs. CIT (3). We are informed that for the assessment year 1970-71 the assessee had filed the return in the status of Hindu undivided family admitting the income from the impugned properties on 24th March, 1971. The declaration filed by the assessee in that return clearly indicates his intention to impress his separate property with the character of joint family property at least on the date of filing of the return, viz. 24th March, 1971. Support for the above proposition is found in the following rulings:- 1. G. Mohan Rao vs. Satyanarana(4) 2. Autoways (India) vs. Commissioner of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lusion from the following passage occuring at page 795:- "Kathoke Lodge was not an asset of a pre-existing joint family of which the appellant was a member. It became an item of joint family property for the first time when the appellant threw what was his separate property into the family hotchpot. The appellant has no son. His wife and unmarried daughter were entitled to be maintained by him from out of the income of Kathoke Lodge while it was his separate property. Their rights in that property are not enlarged for the reason that the property was thrown into the family hotchpot. Not being coparceners of the appellant, they have neither a right by birth in the property nor the right to deemed its partition nor indeed the right to restr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
