Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + SC Income Tax - 1986 (7) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
1986 (7) TMI 89 - SC - Income TaxWhether the expression " impossible " also includes the possibility of including something which is not property as yet of the deceased to pass on the death of the deceased? Held that:- We accept the reasoning of the High Court that if the adoption was not valid as contended for by the Revenue, then Muthiah continued to be a member of the natural family and, as such, his share in the joint family would have passed on the death of the deceased. In this background, it is, however, difficult to appreciate the stand of the Revenue that the adoption was valid but no effect could be given to the terms of the muri. The muri, according to the Revenue, stood by itself. The High Court found it not possible to accept this argument. We are of the same view. The agreement properly read could not be taken as a post-adoption agreement. In that view of the matter, certain factual aspects were urged before the High Court for contending that the accountable person was not free to urge that there was no valid adoption and Muthiah continued to be a member of the natural family. We do not find much merit in such contentions and these need not be dealt with. These have been dealt with by the High Court and we accept them. Not much serious argument in support of the appeal on this aspect by the Revenue was advanced before us. Appeal is answered by saying that amount of ₹ 2 lakhs, if assessable, would have been assessed as a separate estate and the share of the deceased in the property of the joint family at the time of death was one-third and not one-half. In the premises, this appeal fails and is dismissed.
|