TMI Blog1988 (4) TMI 22X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... are 1974-75 and 1975-76. The facts may be briefly stated : Polaki Butchi Babu and his father, Polaki Srirangam, were partners of the firm Polaki Srirangam and Sons at Berhampur and were being assessed as individuals. Srirangam died on December 22, 1968, when the firm was reconstituted, the partners being Polaki Butchi Babu and his two sons. The capital standing to the credit of Srirangam, on being inherited by Polaki Butchi Babu and his sons was credited to the account "Polaki Butchi Babu ( HUF)" in the books of account of the firm. On March 31, 1972, the assessee (Polaki Butchi Babu) threw his individual capital also into the common hotchpot of the Hindu undivided family as mentioned above and pooled both the sums together. Out of that c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oner who, on a reference to the case of CWT v. Chander Sen [1974] 96 ITR 634 (All), observed that on the death of Srirangam, the property passed to the assessee under section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, to the exclusion of the other heirs. Referring to the case of Surjit Lai Chhabda v. CIT [1975] 101 ITR 776 (SC), he further held that the share income received by the assessee did remain as his individual income even though it might be derived from ancestral source. Not being satisfied, the petitioner took the matter before the Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal, in disagreement with the views of the subordinate authorities and relying upon the case of N. V. Narendranath v. CWT [1969] 74 ITR 190 (SC), held that the income received by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) existence of coparcenary property and (iii) existence of separate property of a coparcener. A Hindu female, however, cannot be a coparcener and the doctrine of blending cannot apply to her. In spite of the 1956 Act, this principle stands well settled by a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Pushpa Devi v. CIT [1977] 109 ITR 730. There is no doubt that a somewhat different view has been taken in Surjit Lal Chhabda's case [1975] 101 ITR 776 (SC) in regard to a joint family consisting of females and only one male member. In the commentary on income-tax law by Kanga and Palkhivala, the correctness of this view has been doubted. However, it is not necessary to enter into the niceties or complexities of the problem as the Trib ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... elonging to the joint family was not necessary for impressing the acquired property of a coparcener with the character of the joint family property. Prem Kumar's case [1980] 121 ITR 347 is of the Allahabad High Court where it was held that once the sole surviving coparcener marries, joint Hindu family comes into existence, for the wife along with the husband constitutes a joint Hindu family and there is no difference between " joint Hindu family" and "Hindu undivided family". Reliance was placed upon the following observations of the Supreme Court in the case of C. Krishna Prasad v. CIT [1974] 97 ITR 493 (headnote): "'Family' always signifies a group. Plurality of persons is an essential attribute of a family. A single person, male or f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
