9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (2) TMI 7X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sment year 1964-65. He had no issue of his own. On December 28, 1963, he adopted Maharaja Dharmendra Pratap Singh, who was a minor, as his son. After the said adoption, the status of Maharaja P. P. Singh was taken as that of the Hindu undivided family. Maharaja P. P. Singh died on June 20, 1964. Thereafter his wife, Maharani Rai Laxmi Devi, became the karta of the Hindu undivided family consisting of herself and the aforesaid minor son, Maharaja Dharmendra Pratap Singh. For the assessment year 1966-67, the assessee filed a return declaring the total income of the Hindu undivided family as Rs. 28,935. Subsequently, she filed another return showing the total income as Rs. 25,288. The difference between the original and revised returns was explained on the basis that the revised return had been filed by the Hindu undivided family after excluding the 1/6th share belonging to the minor son, Maharaja Dharmendra Pratap Singh, as an individual because according to section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the 1/3rd share of the late Maharaja P.P. Singh in the Hindu undivided family property devolved on his two heirs, Maharaja Dharmendra Pratap Singh (minor son) and Maharani Raj Laxmi De ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (All) on which reliance has been placed by the High Court in the impugned judgment has been reversed by this court in Kalloomal Tapeswari Prasad (HUF) v. CIT [1982] 133 ITR 690, and the said decision has been followed in the later decisions in ITO v. Smt. N. K. Sarada Thampatty [1991] 187 ITR 696, and R. B. Tunki Sah Baidyanath Prasad v. CIT [1995] 212 ITR 632. Shri Janendra Lal, learned counsel for the assessee, has sought to distinguish the aforementioned decisions of this court on the ground that in those cases partial partition was claimed to have been effected and they fell within the ambit of section 171 of the Act. The submission is that in the present case there was inheritance of the share of the late Maharaja P. P. Singh by his widow and minor son under section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, and that in such a case where on account of inheritance by virtue of statute, there is a diminution of the assets of the Hindu undivided family, section 171 of the Act has no application. In Kalloomal Tapeswari Prasad (HUF) v. CIT [1982] 133 ITR 690 (SC), there was a partial partition in respect of 18 immovable properties which were divided amongst 10 members of the family. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er. We have already held that section 171 of the Act applies to all partitions--total and partial--and that unless a finding is recorded under section 171 that a partial partition has taken place the income from the properties should be included in the total income of the family by virtue of sub-section (1) of section 171 of the Act. " This court has taken note of the decision of the Madras High Court in A. Kannan Chetty v. CIT [1963] 50 ITR 601, 612, wherein it was observed : " For instance, if the karta of a family effects an alienation or even makes a gift, in so far as the taxing department is concerned, it is the income of the members of the Hindu undivided family that can be assessed, and if by reason of an alienation, whether it is binding upon the members of the joint family or not, an item of property ceases to be in the hands of the joint family, it would not be open to the Department to say that they would ignore such an alienation, notwithstanding that the possession of the properties and its income may pass into the hands of a stranger. " This court did not agree with these observations and said (at page 710) : " As long as a finding is not recorded under sectio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... divided family. The said view of the Income-tax Officer was upheld by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner but the Tribunal held that only 50 per cent. of the income should be assessed as the income of the Hindu undivided family leaving the balance 50 per cent. to be assessed as the income of the adopted son, Nand Kumar. The High Court, on a reference, reversed the view taken by the Tribunal and upheld the view taken by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. Before this court the question for consideration was whether compliance with the provisions of section 171 of the Act was necessary. This court has laid down : " Sub-section (1) of section 171 in terms provides that a Hindu undivided family hitherto assessed as undivided shall be deemed for the purposes of this Act to continue to be a Hindu undivided family, except where and in so far as a finding of partition has been given under this section in respect of the Hindu undivided family. On a plain reading of this sub-section it becomes clear that a Hindu family which is assessed as undivided has for the purposes of the Act to be deemed to continue as such unless there is evidence of partition and a finding is recorded to that ef ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
