9911796707
TMI Blog1981 (10) TMI 84X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. 11,125 was disallowed by the ITO being 5/7th share of the total claim. The ITO reasoned that Sh. Roop Chand an erstwhile partner of assessee firm died on30th July, 1966and his legal heir succeeded to the estate of the deceased which was in the form of capital balance in the assessee firm. The legal heirs succeeded jointly and they formed HUF but according to s. 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, "when a male Hindu dies intestate, the estate devolves on the legal heirs in equal shares. Accordingly, keep in view this legal position, he did not agree with assessee's contention as explained in assessee's letter dt.26th Feb., 1979. The ITO, as such, disallowed interest in lieu of five partners of the assessee firm, the total disallowance being 5/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ncome-tax. The paper book also contains copies of balance-sheets of the said HUF right from the asst. yr. 1968-69 to 1976-77, copy of partnership deed, copy of will of Smt. Bela Bai wife of Sh. Roop Chand, deceased and a copy of the letter dt.5th Feb., 1980filed by the assessee with the ITO. 6. The case of the assessee in short is that the parties being Hindu and being governed by Hindu Law, as their personal law, admittedly on facts and in law, they constitute HUF and on these facts, the said late Roop Chand constituted HUF with his wife and sons and on his death his legal heirs having inherited estate of the said late Roop Chand though in their individual capacities, they put it in the common hotch potch of the HUF, hence the claim that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Nos. 17 18 of 1978 vide judgment order dt. 13th April, 1981, their Lordships of the Karnataka High Court at Bangalore have held that 'Re-union of erstwhile HUF was valid even if the divided coparceners failed to bring back the properties which they had got at the time of partition.' On the facts of the case with which we are seized of, Sh. Roop Chand deceased did constitute HUF with his wife and sons and, there was a common hotch potch of the HUF, though it was empty and on the death of said Roop Chand, his sons as legal heirs having inherited some assets and having thrown it into the said empty but common hotch potch, an HUF with tangible assets was there, else on the joining of hand of the sons of the said late Roop Chand, which admitte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unmarried daughter and one married daughter and accordingly, the share of the sons could be even assuming, it has been thrown into the hotch potch), be subject matter of the asset of HUF since the wife and daughter of late Roop Chand being not coparceners, their shares could not have thrown in the common hotch potch of the family. This contention has been raised with the proposition that with the Act of the wife and the daughters share having also been put and thrown into the common hotch potch of the family, the whole of the transaction became void, but we are of the opinion that at best, the share of the wife and the daughter of the deceased Roop Chand could be said to be a gift from those persons to the HUF and there is no restriction in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
