9911796707
TMI Blog1982 (6) TMI 151X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t wealth of the assessee-HUF. 2. The assessee is an 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 dt. 19th April 1946. He then left a will dt. 5th July 1965 in which he stated that the properties which were his self-acquisition after the partition were to go to his three sons equally, a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e treated as the individual properties of Jumbulingam. 3. After hearing the revenue, we are of the opinion that the authorities below have missed the vital point that Sivasubramainam Chettiar, after having separated from the joint family, had absolute right to dispose of the shares of the property received by him under the partition deed dt. 19th April 1946 since he could u/s 30 of the Hindu succ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... perties at an earlier stage. 4. However, it is pointed out by 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 property devolving by testamentary succession were individual properties of Jambulingam, he could have impressed the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... an has impressed the properties by receiving the testamentary sucession 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 authorities below on this point and restore the matter to the WTO for fresh disposal in accordance with law after marshalling ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
