1985 (8) TMI 127 - AT - Income Tax

Summary

Issues:
Interpretation of a will determining ownership of property as individual or Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) property.

Analysis:
The assessee claimed a house property received under a will as HUF property, while the Income Tax Officer (ITO) considered it individual property due to unclear intention in the will. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner (AAC) held that the property belonged to the HUF based on the will's language indicating enjoyment by sons and their families. The revenue appealed against this decision.

The departmental representative argued that the property was given to sons, not their families, contrary to the AAC's interpretation. The counsel for the assessee supported the AAC's decision, emphasizing the will's language indicating the property was for sons and their families. The Tribunal reviewed the will and noted that it specified the property for the three sons to enjoy with absolute rights, without mentioning their families. Referring to a Supreme Court case, the Tribunal highlighted that similar language did not imply gifting to families. Consequently, the property was deemed individual, not HUF, and income assessable individually, reversing the AAC's decision.

The Tribunal's analysis focused on the will's language, emphasizing the absence of explicit provisions for the sons' families to inherit the property. Relying on legal precedent, the Tribunal concluded that the property was received by the sons individually, not as HUF members. This interpretation led to the reversal of the AAC's decision and restoration of the ITO's order, allowing the revenue's appeal.