Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1989 (11) TMI 117

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... as contended by the assessee. 2. The admitted facts are the following. The assessee is an individual. The assessment years involved are 1982-83 and 1983-84, for which the valuation dates were 13th Jan., 1982 and 13th Jan., 1983 respectively. The following genealogical tree is felt essential for a correct appreciation of the point in dispute in these appeals: Alagir Chettiar (died long prior to 1958) Muthulaxmi Ammal (wife) (died in June 1983) Ramasamy Chettiar Subramania Chettiar Dandapani Chettiar (assessee) . . Manickkammal . . (died on 5th April 1977) . . Anantha Sundaram Saraswathi Manohari Subramanian Chettiar (married daughter) (married daughter) Shri Alagiri Chettiar died long prior to 1958. In 1958 a partiti .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... assessee's wife, Smt. Manickkammal, on 5th April, 1977, the assessee became a sole surviving coparcener who had absolute right of disposition over every item of ancestral property remaining with him. In short the Revenue's contention is that after 5th April, 1977 the smaller HUF came to an end and all the ancestral properties remaining with the assessee became his absolute properties and hence their value as on the two relevant valuation dates should be assessed as his individual wealth. 4. The WTO by his separate assessment orders dt. 13th March, 1987 for the asst. yrs. 1982-83 and 1983-84 treated Rs. 1,48,700 and Rs. 1,63,527, which represent the values of the ancestral estate in the hands of the assessee as part of his individual wealt .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ily partition which took place in 1958 between herself and her three sons and whatever she got in the said partition represents her husband's share in the joint family properties. Speaking about the effect of partition the learned author of Mulla's Hindu Law (15th Edn.) at page 465 said that the effect of a partition is to dissolve the coparcenary, with the result that the separating members thenceforth hold their respective shares as their separate property and the share of each member will pass on hid death to his heirs. So in 1958 when the family partition took place in the larger HUF to which Smt. Muthulaxmi Ammal was a party in which she had stepped into her husband's shoes and claimed share in the family properties to which her husban .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... joint family consists of all persons lineally descended from a common ancestor and includes their wives and unmarried daughters. A Hindu coparcenary is a much narrower body than the joint family inasmuch as it includes only those persons who acquire by birth an interest in joint or coparcenary property. They also held that a single male member and widows of deceased male members may constitute HUF and under the IT Act there is no necessity for the existence of atleast two male members before it is being assessed as HUF. The Supreme Court held from the facts before it that even after the death of A the HUF is still continuing with the remaining members of the family even though they are all females. This decision is not applicable to the fac .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... is separate property, and if the coparcener dies without leaving male issue, it passes to his heirs by succession. A person who for the time being is the sole surviving coparcener is entitled to dispose of the coparcenary property as if it were his separate property. He may sell or mortgage the property without legal necessity or he may take a gift of it. If a son is subsequently born to him or adopted by him, the alienation, whether it is by way of sale, mortgage or gift, will nevertheless stand, for a son cannot object to alienations made by his father before he has born or begotten. In view of the above it cannot be denied that the appellant at present is the absolute owner of the property which fell to his share as a result of partitio .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates