9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Determining the status of the assessee as an HUF or an individual based on a declaration made before a notary public. Analysis: The case involved a reference under section 27(1) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957, regarding the status of the assessee as an HUF or an individual for the assessment year 1964-65. The assessee claimed to be assessed as an HUF, but the WTO and AAC determined the status as that of an individual. The Tribunal, considering the declaration made by the assessee before a notary public in 1962, held that the status should be that of an HUF for the relevant assessment year. The key question was whether the Tribunal was correct in determining the assessee's status as an HUF based on the declaration. The revenue contended that the declaration did not sufficiently express the intention to throw the property into the hotchpot, lacked evidence of a pre-existing coparcenary, and failed to properly identify the properties involved. Additionally, they argued that the assessee's attempt to include liabilities in the hotchpot was impermissible under the law. The revenue's arguments were supported by various decisions, including CIT v. V. K. Stremann, Goli Eswariah v. CGT, and Vrajlal Trikamlal v. CIT, emphasizing the necessity of a clear intention to waive separate rights for blending separate property with joint family property. However, the court also considered decisions like R. Subramania Iyer v. CIT and CIT v. M. M. Khanna, highlighting that a joint Hindu family can exist even without ancestral property, and the father can impress self-acquired property with the character of joint family property. The court found that the declaration adequately identified the properties thrown into the hotchpot, established the intention of the assessee, and described the pre-existing coparcenary. The court noted that the declaration itself was sufficient evidence of the transformation of self-acquired property into coparcenary property. The revenue's contentions were deemed meritless and not supported by the cited decisions. The court answered the question in favor of the assessee, emphasizing that the revenue could not raise new points at that stage requiring fresh investigation into facts. The judgment was delivered affirmatively in favor of the assessee, with no order as to costs. Judge C. K. Banerji agreed with the judgment delivered by Judge Dipak Kumar Sen, supporting the decision in favor of the assessee.
|
