TMI Blog1990 (5) TMI 62X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd interest of Rs. 202 was received during the year. It was the claim of the assessee before the ITO that this income constituted the income of the HUF. For this proposition, reliance was placed on various decisions of the Courts, namely, Gowli Buddanna v. CIT [1966] 60 ITR 293 (SC), Vedathanni v. CIT [1933] 1 ITR 70 (Mad.) and N. V. Narendranath v. CWT [1969] 74 ITR 190 (SC). According to the ITO, the decisions cited on behalf of the assessee were no more the correct law in view of the subsequent decision in the case of Surjit Lal Chhabda v. CIT [1975] 101 ITR 776 (SC). Holding that the assessee in this case cannot have a HUF, he treated the arrangement as coming within the meaning of tax planning as contemplated by the Supreme Court in th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mitted that the claim of the assessee is to be allowed and the gifted property cannot be included in the individual assessment of the assessee. On the other hand, Shri K.K. Dhawan, learned Departmental Representative supported the order of the learned A.A.C. According to him, a Hindu undivided family presupposes a jointness. The normal state of every Hindu family is joint and unless there is a HUF before the gift, it cannot assume the character of a HUF by impressing the gift to the husband and wife which is not Hindu undivided family in law. Since the case of the assessee is squarely covered by the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Surjit Lal Chhabda relied upon by the ITO and the A.A.C., it is submitted that this is a pure and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and during the relevant assessment year, namely, 1972-73, he had a wife and a daughter. The Revenue wanted to treat the income from the sums gifted as individual income under the Income-tax Act and the sums and accretions thereto as individual properties under the W.T. Act. The assessee claimed that the properties and income therefrom were assessable as belonging to his HUF. The claim was accepted at the stage of the Appellate Tribunal. On a reference, it was held that the income from the gifted property arose to the HUF and could not be clubbed with the assessee's individual income. While arriving at this decision, the Full Bench of the Madras High Court overruled their earlier decision in the case of M. Balasubramanian distinguished the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|