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

1963 (3) TMI 67

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... pass under section 10 of the Act? One Annadurai Aiyangar died on the 19th February, 1954. He left surviving him his widow, three sons and three daughters. The applicant is the eldest of the sons. He, as one of the accountable persons, furnished an account of the estate. In the original account filed by him, certain properties were not included. In respect of one such item, a house property, the applicant claimed that it belonged to him exclusively, and with regard to the rest, the contention was that the deceased, Annadurai Aiyangar, who had acquired them, had thrown them into the family hotchpot so that those items became the joint family property of Annadurai and his three sons. It was further claimed that in 1949 a partition had ta .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... rts to be a partition agreement entered into by Annadurai Aiyangar and his three sons. According to the recitals of this document, the properties set out in schedule E were the joint family properties, Factually, those properties were not divided by metes and bounds, but were left to be enjoyed in common by the three sons. The document set out that the properties other than those found in the E schedule had been purchased with the separate earnings of Annadurai Aiyangar. Some of them had been purchased jointly in the name of Annadurai and his eldest son, Ranganathan, and were being enjoyed as joint family property. Annadurai Aiyangar had also transferred shares in several companies which he had purchased with his separate funds in the names .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... , Varadarajan and Krishnan, set out in the C and D schedules, is round about ₹ 10,000. It is explained that since the house property, D. No. 104, New Street, Madurai, has been purchased in the name of Ranganathan, he was given a lesser share at this division. The question is whether on these recitals the Central Board of Revenue was right in concluding that section 10 of the Estate Duty Act had any application. The Board observed, in dealing with the properties other than the house property referred to, thus: As regards the other property, however, it is an admitted fact that the income from this property was returned and assessed to income-tax in the hands of the deceased. The provisions of section 10 are, therefore, clearly .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ecisions. It is not necessary for us to deal with that aspect of the matter further. It should follow from this that Annadurai Aiyangar was entitled to declare that his separate properties were joint family properties. The Board did not apparently deal with this aspect of the matter, but from the conclusion it reached, viz., that it was not a partition deed but only a settlement deed, seems to have thought that the separate properties of Annadurai had not become joint family properties of the family. The document in question contains a declaration by the father that he had, as and when the properties were acquired, immediately brought them into the hotchpot and that thereafter those properties had always been treated as joint family propert .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... originally the selfacquisitions of Annadurai had become merged with the joint family properties and except to the extent of the interest created in favour of Kanakammal, the wife of Annadurai, and Pankajavalli, the daughter of Annadurai, the document has not achieved what it purported to achieve, viz., partition among the several coparceners. Whatever that aspect of the matter may be, there is no doubt whatsoever that after the property had become joint family property, it was not open to the father to apportion the property by way of gift even to the other members of the coparcenary. It is obvious that section 10, which deals with property taken under a gift, has no application to the facts of the case. The correct view to take would a .....

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