TMI Blog1989 (3) TMI 53X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ifted properties arose to the Hindu undivided family and it cannot be, therefore, clubbed with the assessee's individual income ?" The question referred in Tax Case No. 1450 of 1977, a case arising under the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, runs as follows: "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, it has been rightly held that the sum of Rs. 2,61,136 belonged to the Hindu undivided family and, therefore, not assessable in the hands of the assessee in his individual capacity ?" The assessee's father was one Meiyappa Chettiar. On June 5, 1966, the father issued a cheque for Rs. 10,000 in favour of the assessee, who was one among his four sons, and gave him also cash of Rs. 100. Contemporaneously, the assessee's father gave a le ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... when he gets married and they all should enjoy the same as a Hindu joint family and these sums as well as the accretions thereto should be subject to the incidence of the joint family property under the Hindu law. These are express provisions and no difficulty need be apparently experienced in the terms or expressions used in the letter of gift that the interest which the assessee took in the sums will bear the character of a property belonging to a Hindu joint family. Under the statutes concerned, the concept of a Hindu undivided family is different from the concept of a Hindu coparcenary in ordinary Hindu law. A Hindu coparcenary is a much narrower body and it includes only those who have acquired by birth an interest in the joint or co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the benefit of the entire family. The son, with the funds, acquired further properties and they were the subject-matter of a division at a later point of time through arbitrators. The assessee, a grandson, was allotted certain properties by the award of the arbitrators and he contended that the properties got by him under the award had to be treated as the properties of a Hindu undivided family of which he was the karta. The Division Bench went by the primary rule of intention and they held that the properties should be treated as those of Hindu undivided family. In CIT v. Radhambal Ammal [1985] 153 ITR 440, another Division Bench of this court dealt with the case of a will executed by the assessee's adoptive father, bequeathing properties ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... there are express provisions to the effect in the deed of gift or will that the son would take the property for the benefit of the family, that is decisive. The case in Surjit Lal Chhabda v. CIT [1975] 101 ITR 776 (SC) is clearly distinguishable on facts. That was a case where the assessee had wife and an unmarried daughter and he made a declaration that he had thrown the immovable property, which was his self-acquisition, into the joint, family hotchpot in order to impress that property with the character of joint family property and he further declared that he would be holding the property as the karta of the joint Hindu family consisting of himself, his wife and his unmarried daughter. Dealing with the facts of that case and expressin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
