9911796707
TMI Blog1982 (6) TMI 139X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ude certain properties on the ground that they do not form part of the net wealth of the assessee-HUF. 2. The assessee is a HUF whose karta was T. S. Jambulingam. The father of Jambulingam, T. S. Sivasubramaniam Chettiar, effected a partition between himself and his three sons by deed dated 19-4-1946. He then left a will dated 5-7-1965 in which he stated that the properties received by him from t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... view that the will itself was only an attempt to partition his properties among his sons and, therefore, the properties bequeathed could not be treated as the individual properties of Jambulingam. 3. After hearing the revenue, we are of the opinion that the authorities below have missed the vital point that Sivasubramaniam Chettiar after having separated from the joint family had absolute right t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... joint family properties merely because they happened to be ancestral properties at an earlier stage. 4. However, it is pointed out on behalf of the revenue that the ITO had taken another ground for rejecting the claim, namely, that the assessee had shown the income from those properties as the income of the HUF. In other words, the contention is that even if the properties devolving by testamenta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re either partially or fully partitioned between Jambulingam and his sons. Since this question as to whether Jambulingam has impressed the properties received by testamentary succession with the character of joint family properties is a question of fact, to be decided with reference to relevant evidence and as such evidence is not on record, we deem it fit to set aside the orders of the authoritie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
