9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (2) TMI 7X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gment of the court was delivered by S.P. BHARUCHA J.-- These appeals arise from a judgment delivered by the High Court at Patna (Ranchi Bench) (see [1996] 217 ITR 36) on an income-tax reference at the instance of the Revenue. The three questions the High Court was called upon to consider read thus: "(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the female heirs of a Hindu governed by the Dayabhaga school of Hindu law dying intestate could form a joint Hindu family by means of agreement? (ii) Whether the female heirs of a Hindu governed by the Dayabhaga school of Hindu law dying intestate could impress upon their inherited property the character of joint family property? (iii) Whether, on the facts and in the circu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he view of the taxing authorities. From out of the judgment of the Tribunal, the questions aforestated were referred to the High Court. The High Court, relying principally upon the judgment of this court in CWT v. Gauri Shankar Bhar [1972] 84 ITR 699 came to the conclusion that there was no bar to the constitution of a Hindu undivided family in respect of the properties inherited by the heirs, whether female or male, of a Hindu governed by the Dayabhaga school dying intestate by throwing an ascertained share into the hotchpot by agreement. The High Court was in error in its reading of the judgment of this court in the case of Gauri Shankar Bhar [1972] 84 ITR 699. This court held, in view of the concession that each one of the heirs of a d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly by adoption. This court in Pushpa Devi v. CIT [1977] 109 ITR 730 held that it was a fundamental notion governing a joint Hindu family that a female member of the joint family cannot blend her separate property, even if she is the absolute owner thereof, with the joint family property. This judgment covered a case where there was already a joint family in existence and held that, even so, a female cannot blend her absolute property therewith. The ratio applies as much when a female purports to create by agreement with other females a Hindu undivided family and blends the property of her absolute ownership therewith. The assessee-respondent has not put in an appearance. Since a question of law was involved, we had requested Mr. B. Sen to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... find that that is not the conclusion of the High Court. What it said was, "It follows that on the disappearance of the last male member, the other members of the family, though not coparceners, continue to be members of a undivided Hindu family." What was held, therefore, was that on the death of the sole male member of the Hindu undivided family, the ladies who were members thereof could continue with that status. The Tribunal also cited the judgment of this court in CIT v. Rm. Ar. Ar. Veerappa Chettiar [1970] 76 ITR 467. The Tribunal rightly noted that this court had there held that so long as the property which was originally of a joint Hindu family remained in the hands of the widows of the members of the family and was not divided amon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
