9911796707
TMI Blog1980 (3) TMI 167X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... individual capacity by a deed dt.1st April, 1970. He also threw this into the common hotchpot of his joint family. It was argued before the Officer that this declaration had been acted upon both for Income and WT purposes. The Asstt. Contrl. held that in view of the provisions of the ED Act, such as Expln. 2 to 2(15) and 27, it is included as the property passing on the death of the deceased. He also invoked the provision of s. 10 as well. 2. The accountable person appealed to the Appl. CED. The Appl. Controller confirmed the finding. The Appl. Contr. found that in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Kantilal Trakamlal (105 ITR 92), the inclusion by the Asstt. Contr. has to be upheld. 3. The accountable person has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 790) can be said to have been over ruled. An act by which the self acquired property is converted into a joint family property, will be a disposition within the provisions of the ED Act. Alternatively, it was submitted that s. 13 of the ED Act would be applicable to this type of transaction and the assessment an be sustained on that score. Reading through s. 13 it was submitted that the property which was the absolute property of the individual was caused to be vested in himself and any other person jointly whether by disposition or otherwise by himself alone, or in concert, so that the beneficial interest in some part of the property passes or accrues by survivorship on his death to the other person and as such the whole of that property ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erence was also made to s. 6 of the Hindu Act, 1956. 5. The facts have been given above. The deceased was possessed of this property as his absolute property and on 1st April, 1970 he impressed it with the character of joint family property by a declaration. The question is whether this would amount to a disposition within the meaning of Expln. to s. 2(15) and s. 27 of the ED Act. There is a direct decision on this question to the effect, that it is not a disposition. (84 ITR 790). In view of this decision, it is unnecessary to consider in detail the argument of the Dept. Rep. That in view of the decision in the Kantilal Trakamlal's case (2) the ruling in 84 ITR 790 is no longer good law, because that decision did not deal with a similar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Hindu Family." 7. It would, therefore, be clear that the right by birth which a male issue of a coparcener has in the family property is not available in the case of joint property in the English Law. s. 13 requires the property which was previously owned by one to cause it to be vested in him and any other person jointly before it can be applied. What happens when a self acquired property is converted to joint family property was considered in 84 ITR 790 at pages 795 and 796. "When separate property is converted into joint family property, the property vests in the family as an entity by itself. It will be inaccurate to say that the father owns the property jointly with the family." The rule of survivorship is also abrogated in situatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
