9911796707
TMI Blog1978 (12) TMI 86X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e inherited the properties under s. 8 of the Hindu Succession Act as their separate properties and the assessments cannot be made in the status of HUF. 2. On appeal, the AAC confirmed the action of the WTO. There was a further appeal to the Tribunal. The Tribunal set aside the order of the AAC and remitted the case back to the file of the AAC to consider: (1) Whether the assessee Shri Sundaravadivel Mudaliar and his sons were living as joint family prior to the demise of Shri Sundaravadivel Mudaliar; and (2) Whether there was throwing of the property into the common hotchpot by the sons after the demise and whether their action in filling returns in the status of HUF would amount to throwing the properties into the family hotchpot. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the sons on their father dying intestate inherited the properties under s. 8 of the Hindu succession Act as their separate properties and the assessment cannot be made in the status of HUF. (e) At the time of death of Shri Sundaravadivel Mudaliar, two of his sons were minors. The throwing into the family hotchpot was effected by their mother acting as guardian. The minors, by not repudiating the transaction after attaining majority, must be taken to have ratified the transaction. (f) The mother Smt., Jayalakshmi Ammal, not being a coparcener, cannot throw her 1/7th share into the family, hotchpot so as to impress it with the character of HUF. In view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Pushpa Devi vs CIT, New Delhi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt. presumably every such family is joint in food, worship and estate. In the absence of proof of division, such is the legal presumption". In other words, "given a joint Hindu family, the presumption is, until the contrary is proved, that the family continues joint". The effect of these circumstances clearly go to establish that Shri Sundaravadivel Mudaliar and his sons were living as joint family with joint family worship, food, etc,. It is the existence of the joint family and not the property that is essential for throwing the separate property into the family hotchpot. As pointed out in CIT vs. Pushpa Devi(1) the holding property by the joint Hindu family is not necessary to enable a coparcener to impress his personal property with the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o 3rd June, 1969 assessment was made on Sundaravadivel Mudaliar in the status of 'individual' and from 4th June, 1969 to 31st March, 1970 both wealth-tax and income-tax assessments were made on the heirs of Shri Sundaravadivel Mudaliar in the status of HUF. Thus, for asst. yrs. 1970-71 to 1973-74 income-tax as well as wealth-tax returns were filed in the status of HUF by the heirs of Shri Sundaravadivel Mudaliar and the status shown was accepted and assessments were completed. The filing of income-tax and wealth-tax returns in the status of HUF and the Revenue accepting the same clearly establish that the sons after the death of their father threw their respective 1/7th share in the properties left by their father in the family hotchpot and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
