9911796707
TMI Blog1978 (12) TMI 98X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e son of one S.L.N. Sathappa Chettiar. On 13th April, 1955 there was a partition in the HUF of Sathappa Chettiar and his sons. At that time his two sons, Narayanan and Periannan, were both minors aged 12 and 1 respectively. An application was made on 14th Sept., 1955 for the recognition of the partition under s. 25A of the IT Act, 1922. The ITO declined to recognise the partition by his order dt. 29th March, 1956. Thereupon Sathappa Chettiar preferred ITA No.214 of 1956-57 before the AAC, Trichy, who by his order dt. 21st Jan., 1957, accepted the claim of partition and directed the ITO to make an assessment on that basis. As a result of this partition Sathappa Chettiar became liable to pay to Periannan a certain sum of money. Since Perianna ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat Rs. 50,000 was withdrawn from him for the purpose of paying advance for the purchase of the coffee estate and since that represented ancestral properties in the hands of Periannan, the estate acquired should also be considered as belonging to the assessee HUF. Thus by his order dt. 20th Feb., 1976 he determined the total income as Rs. 66,630. In doing so he included Rs. 45,148 being the assessee's share of the income from the Grove Estate. 4. Similarly for the asst. yr. 1977-78 Rs. 70,940 being the assessee's share of the income from the above said estate was included in the assessment of the assessee HUF and by order dt. 25th Feb., 1977 the total income was determined as Rs. 90,030. 5. Aggrieved by such assessments the assessee pre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... said that there was detriment to the funds of the assessee HUF in the matter of acquiring the above estate. In support of this contention reliance was placed upon the debit entry dt. 12th June, 1976 debiting the account of Sathappa Chettiar in the books of the assessee HUF. A true copy of the said account for the period from 12th April, 1973 to 13th April, 1975 has been placed before us. 7. It is now well established that in deciding the question whether a property purchased by a member of a joint family in his own name is joint family property or the separate property of that member, the criterion is to consider from what source the purchase money was paid, whether it came from joint family chest or from the separate funds of the member ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uirer becomes a family by reason of his marriage. In the instant case, as already stated, Rs. 50,000 was paid towards Periannan' s share of advance for the purchase of the estate in question from out of the moneys, which Sathappa Chettiar was liably to pay to Periannan under the partition arrangement. In other words, Rs. 50,000 out of the funds allotted to Periannan in the partition had been utilised in the acquisition of the estate. Therefore, the estate in question would automatically become the property of the assessee HUF on its coming in to existence. 8. The contention urged on behalf of the assessee that Periannan had treated himself only as a creditor and hence the property should be considered as his separate property cannot be ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
