9911796707
TMI Blog1971 (3) TMI 17X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Jaipur, under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, praying that the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (Delhi Bench " B "), New Delhi, be called upon to state the case and refer the following question to the High Court for answer : " Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the property acquired in the name of Smt. Rukmani Devi, a member of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd brothers. The Income-tax Officer did not accept the version of Smt. Rukmini Devi. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner also upheld the decision of the Incometax Officer. On appeal, the Appellate Tribunal came to a contrary conclusion. In coming to the contrary conclusion, the Appellate Tribunal observed as follows : " The lady has explained that she was the only daughter of her parents and th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sistant Commissioner of Income-tax and held that the house could not be treated as the joint family property. The Commissioner of Income-tax put in an application to the Appellate Tribunal requesting that the case may be stated and the question may be referred to the High Court for answer. The Appellate Tribunal rejected the application observing that the decision of the Tribunal was based on appr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m was proved false. In these circumstances, the Tribunal raised a presumption against the joint Hindu family and treated the property as a part of the joint Hindu family. In maintaining the decision of the Appellate Tribunal, the Patna High Court made the observations relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner. In my opinion, the observations rest upon the peculiar facts of that case and can ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
