1977 (6) TMI 11 - HC - Income Tax

Issues Involved:
1. Genuine nature of the transaction.
2. Applicability of section 9(2) of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Income-tax Act.
3. Assessment of income in the hands of individuals or Hindu undivided families (HUFs).
4. Liability for losses in the context of HUFs.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Genuine Nature of the Transaction
The respondents declared that their shares in two firms, Messrs. Waverly Estates and Caladonia Estates, were transferred to their respective Hindu undivided families (HUFs). The Agricultural Income-tax Officer and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner initially rejected this claim, suspecting it was a scheme to evade tax. However, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner implicitly found the transaction genuine. The Agricultural Income-tax Appellate Tribunal explicitly confirmed the transaction's genuineness, stating that the declarations should be taken at face value.

2. Applicability of Section 9(2) of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Income-tax Act
Section 9(2) of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Income-tax Act includes provisions for including income from assets transferred to a wife or minor child in the individual's total agricultural income. The Tribunal concluded that the act of throwing individual property into the common hotchpot of a joint family does not constitute a "transfer" under section 9(2)(a)(iii) and (iv). The High Court agreed, citing precedents like Kandaswami Chettiar v. Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax and Goli Eswariah v. Commissioner of Gift-tax, which established that such acts do not amount to transfers and hence do not attract section 9(2).

3. Assessment of Income in the Hands of Individuals or HUFs
The core question was whether the income from the firms should be assessed in the hands of the respondents as individuals or as HUFs. The High Court noted that the existence of a coparcenary is essential for throwing individual property into the common hotchpot. The Supreme Court's decision in Surjit Lal Chhabda v. Commissioner of Income-tax was discussed, which held that in the absence of a coparcenary (only a wife and unmarried daughter), the income remains the individual's. However, in cases where there is a coparcenary (presence of a minor son), the income should be assessed in the hands of the HUF. The High Court also referenced Commissioner of Income-tax v. Kalu Babu Lal Chand and Charandas Haridas v. Commissioner of Income-tax, which supported the view that income from joint family property should be assessed as HUF income.

4. Liability for Losses in the Context of HUFs
The High Court entertained doubts about whether a member of an HUF could share his liabilities by throwing his property into the common hotchpot, especially when minors are involved. The Supreme Court in Goli Eswariah v. Commissioner of Gift-tax clarified that the act of throwing property into the common stock is unilateral and does not require acceptance by the family. The High Court decided not to delve deeply into this issue as it was not examined at earlier stages and left it open for future consideration.

Conclusion
The High Court dismissed the revision petitions, affirming that:
- The transaction was genuine.
- Section 9(2) of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Income-tax Act does not apply.
- The income should be assessed in the hands of the HUFs for respondents with a coparcenary.
- For the respondent without a son, the income should be assessed in the individual's hands.

The court appreciated the assistance of Mr. J. Jayaraman in presenting the arguments.

← Previous Next →