9911796707
TMI Blog1992 (5) TMI 173X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... application under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as " the Act "), presented on August 11, 1982, we proceed to draw up a statement of the case and refer the question arising out of the Tribunal's order in I. T. A. No. 1100/(Mds) of 1981, relating to the income-tax assessment for the year 1977-78. There was one Palaniappa Chettiar who, along with his wife, Anandavalli Achi, their son, Karuppan Chettiar, and their daughter-in-law, constituted a Hindu undivided family. There was a partition in this family on March 22, 1954, under which Palaniappa Chettiar was allotted certain properties as and for his share and he got separated. This partition was recognised by the Income-tax Department under section 25A o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... umar [1968] 67 ITR 164, held that the properties did not form part of joint family properties so that income therefrom could be assessed as the income in the hands of the family consisting of Karuppan Chettiar and his sons and other members. It is this order of the Tribunal which was challenged by the Commissioner in the reference decided by a Full Bench of the Madras High Court whose decision is reported in CIT (Addl) v. P. L Karuppan Chettiar [1978] 114 ITR 523. The question referred at the instance of the Commissioner to the Madras High Court was as under (at page 525) : " Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the properties inherited by Karuppan Chettiar from his ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Department. At the hearing of the reference application before us, the learned Departmental representative pointed out that a debatable question of law arises out of the order of the Tribunal, and as there is a conflict of views between different High Courts on this point as is seen from the contrary view expressed by the Gujarat High Court reported in CIT v. Dr. Babubhai Mansukhbhai [1977] 108 ITR 417, a direct reference may be made to the Supreme Court as provided for in section 257 of the Act. The Allahabad High Court in CIT v. Ram Rakshpal Ashok Kumar [1968] 67 ITR 164 held, on a detailed consideration of the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, 1,956, particularly sections 4(1), 6 and 8, that the rule under the Mitakshara Sc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 523 has agreed with the Allahabad High Court view and dissented from the view of the Gujarat High Court. The court also pointed out that the passage quoted in the Gujarat High Court decision from the commentary on Hindu law by Mulla did not deal with the effect of section 8 of the Act ; that what has been illustrated is also the position under the Hindu law untrammelled by statutes, and it occurs in the commentaries to section 6 of the Act which deals with survivorship and the saving by that section of that principle to the extent to which it had been done. It was observed that this passage is of no assistance in determining the impact of section 8 on the principles of devolution of property on the death on the principles of inheritance. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
