9911796707
TMI Blog1967 (1) TMI 36X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the amount of Rs. 91, 668 inherited by Ghasiram Agarwalla from his deceased father under section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, was his absolute property? (2) Whether, on the division of the aforesaid amount of Rs. 91,668 between Ghasiram Agarwalla and his three sons, there was a gift of Rs. 68,751 by Ghasiram Agarwalla to his three sons which was assessable to gift-tax?" The facts of the case which are beyond doubt may be briefly stated. The rice mill called Sagarmal Ghasiram Rice Mill of Ramgiya was owned by a Hindu undivided family governed by the Mitakshara school of Hindu law of which Sagarmal Agarwalla was the karta. Subsequently, there was a partial parti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was his separate property and on his death Ghasiram inherited this separate property as his sole heir under section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act. So holding, the learned Appellate Assistant Commissioner found that the transfer by Ghasiram to his three sons was rightly treated as a gift and assessed as such by the Gift-tax Officer. This decision was confirmed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal which has made this reference to us in this case. The Tribunal also held that whatever might have been the position under the Hindu law before the enactment of the Hindu Succession Act, after the coming into operation of the said Act, the estate inherited under section 8 would be absolute property of the inheritor and could not be regarded as ances ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... far as separate property of a Hindu is concerned, it devolves as his separate self-acquired property on his heirs and does not pass by survivorship even if be happens to be joint. Hence, the view taken by the members of the Appellate Tribunal that after the passing of the Hindu Succession Act the law is changed does not appear to be sound, because even before the Act the separate property devolved on the heirs of the individual concerned. Hence, in view of the findings of the court below on the facts that Rs. 91,668 left by Sagarmal Agarwalla at the time of his death in his account of the partnership business was his self-acquired property, we answer the questions as follows : Question No. 1 : The answer is in the affirmative. Question ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
