9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Determining whether the property 'Grove Estate' belongs to the assessee-Hindu undivided family and if the income arising from it should be considered as the income of the Hindu undivided family for the assessment years 1975-76 and 1976-77. Analysis: The case involves a dispute over the ownership of the 'Grove Estate' purchased by Periannan and his brother Narayanan in 1973. The key question is whether the property is the joint family property of the assessee-Hindu undivided family or the self-acquired property of Periannan. The court referred to legal principles stating that property acquired with the aid of joint family assets is considered joint family property. In this case, the estate was purchased using funds withdrawn from ancestral properties, making it joint family property. The court highlighted that the property became part of the Hindu undivided family upon its creation with Periannan's marriage in 1974. The court considered the argument that the funds used for purchasing the estate were debited to Sathappa Chettiar's account in the books of the Hindu undivided family after Periannan's marriage. However, the court rejected this contention, emphasizing that once the estate became the property of the Hindu undivided family, its character could not change. Therefore, the Tribunal's decision that the 'Grove Estate' belonged to the assessee-Hindu undivided family was upheld. In conclusion, the court ruled in favor of the Revenue, stating that the 'Grove Estate' should be considered as belonging to the assessee-Hindu undivided family. The court awarded costs to the Revenue and set counsel's fee at Rs. 500.
|
