1980 (4) TMI 80 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the mere book entry is sufficient to convert individual's separate property into joint family property for tax purposes?

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to an individual deriving income from money-lending business and property, with assessment years 1971-72 and 1972-73. The dispute arose when the Income Tax Officer (ITO) assessed the income from a sum of Rs. 50,000 debited in the assessee's capital account, estimating it at 18% and adding it back to the income. The assessee claimed the amount was thrown into the joint family hotchpot and used in the pawnbroking business. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner (AAC) and the Tribunal held that no formal declaration was necessary to prove the conversion of property into joint family property, relying on entries in the books of account. The key issue was whether a mere book entry was sufficient to convert individual's separate property into joint family property for tax purposes.

The judgment delves into the doctrine of "throwing into the common stock or common hotchpot," emphasizing the essential requisites for such conversion: the existence of a coparcenary and the deliberate intention of the coparcener owning separate property to treat it as joint family property. It was clarified that the transformation into joint family property is based on the coparcener's intention, not just physical acts or public declarations. In this case, the court found a clear intention to throw the sum of Rs. 50,000 into the joint family hotchpot, supported by entries in the capital account and the assessee's statement regarding the use of the amount in the pawnbroking business. As per the court's analysis, the mere book entry, along with the intention demonstrated, was deemed sufficient to convert the individual's separate property into joint family property. Consequently, the references were answered affirmatively in favor of the assessee, who was awarded costs.

In conclusion, the judgment clarifies the principles governing the conversion of separate property into joint family property for tax purposes. It underscores the importance of intention over formalities, highlighting that a mere book entry, coupled with a clear intention, can suffice to establish such conversion. The decision provides a significant interpretation of the doctrine and its application in the context of individual and joint family property, setting a precedent for similar cases involving tax assessments based on property conversions.