9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Assessment of income derived from properties inherited by the assessee, Status of properties inherited from adoptive and natural father, Applicability of earlier Tribunal decision to current assessment years. Analysis: The judgment pertains to assessment years 1972-73 to 1976-77 and involves a dispute regarding the status of income derived from properties inherited by the assessee. Initially, the Income-tax Officer assessed all properties inherited by the assessee as belonging to his Hindu undivided family. However, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner distinguished between properties inherited from the adoptive father and the natural father, holding that income from the former was Hindu undivided family income, while income from the latter was individual income. The Revenue challenged the decision only concerning income from the natural father's properties before the Tribunal. The Tribunal observed that none of the properties acquired by the assessee could be considered joint family property. It determined that properties inherited from the natural father and adoptive father did not constitute ancestral property due to the assessee's adoption by the widow of the adoptive father. The Tribunal concluded that the properties did not belong to the Hindu undivided family. The Tribunal's decision was based on earlier rulings and did not disturb the Appellate Assistant Commissioner's findings regarding the adoptive father's properties. The High Court, in its decision, emphasized that the Tribunal's order was confined to income derived from properties inherited from the natural father and widow. It criticized the Income-tax Officer for including income from properties inherited from the adoptive father in the individual status of the assessee based on the Tribunal's earlier decision. The High Court held that the Tribunal erred in confirming the inclusion of income from the adoptive father's properties as individual income and stated that it should have been assessed as Hindu undivided family income, as per the Appellate Assistant Commissioner's decision. The Court ruled in favor of the assessee, emphasizing that the Tribunal's decision did not apply to properties inherited from the adoptive father. In conclusion, the High Court found that the Tribunal's decision wrongly included income from properties inherited from the adoptive father as individual income, contrary to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner's ruling. The Court clarified that the Tribunal's decision was limited to the natural father's properties and did not extend to properties inherited from the adoptive father. The Court emphasized that the Tribunal should have followed the Appellate Assistant Commissioner's decision regarding the status of income from the adoptive father's properties.
|
