9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (2) TMI 67X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee to have been thrown in the common hotchpot as per declaration made in the return for the assessment year 1968-69 and reiterated in the return for the assessment year 1972-73 onwards, was not liable to be excluded from individual assessment of the applicant ?" The aforementioned question of law is said to arise out of the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal dated November 30, 1978, passed in ITA Nos. 1847 and 843 (Alld.) of 1976-77 relating to the assessment years 1973-74 and 1974-75. The facts giving rise to the aforesaid reference is set out below : The assessee is an individual and derives income from salary. In the return of income for the assessment years in question i.e., 1973-74 and 1974-75, the assessee had shown his inc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ected by the Income-tax Officer, the assessee did not agitate the issue any further and had accepted the same. Moreover, the assessee had voluntarily included the income of the aforesaid house property in his return as belonging to him for the assessment years 1968-69 to 1971-72. Even though the assessee had filed revision applications before the Commissioner of Income-tax under section 264 of the Act, for the assessment years 1969-70 to 1971-72, but the assessee did not challenge the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax, rejecting his revision for the assessment years 1969-70 and 1970-71 on the ground of limitation and for the assessment year 1971-72 on the merits any further and he accepted the decision of the Commissioner. Thus, up to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the joint family, either by bringing his self acquired property into a joint family account, or by bringing joint family property into his separate account, the effect is that all the property so blended becomes a joint family property. Thus, according to him, the income of the house property could not have been treated as individual income of the assessee and instead it should be treated as income of the Hindu undivided family. He further relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Narayana Raju (G.) (Decd.) v. G. Chamaraju [1968] AIR 1968 SC 1276, in which it has been held that "it is a well established doctrine of Hindu law that property which was originally self-acquired may become joint property if it has been volunt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ired property in the common hotchpot of the Hindu undivided family may manifest itself in any form, such as by a statement in a deposition, an affidavit, execution of a document as a declaratory deed, or by course of conduct. What tranforms the separate property into joint family property is not the outward act or the conduct or the public declaration of the coparcener owning the separate property, but his intention to so treat it-the intention of the coparcener who owns the separate property to waive and surrender his special rights in the property as separate property. The outward acts are merely evidence of the intention and by themselves they do not change the character of the property. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er, the assessee had thrown the house property in the common hotchpot of the Hindu undivided family or not. According to him, the assessee had accepted the decision of the Income-tax Officer for the assessment year 1968-69 in which his claim of throwing the property in the common hotchpot of the Hindu undivided family was not accepted. The assessee himself had not only accepted the aforesaid decision for the assessment year 1968-69 but for the subsequent three assessment years, also, i.e., up to the assessment year 1971-72, he had himself treated the said property as his individual property. Thus, the intention of the assessee from the very beginning was to treat the property in question as his individual property and the declaration was no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... his own while filing the returns of income for the three subsequent assessment years, i.e., 1969-70, 1970-71 and 1971-72. The assessee unsuccessfully challenged the assessment orders for the assessment years 1969-70 to 1971-72 before the Commissioner of Income-tax by filing the revision, which was rejected. The assessee had accepted the decision of the Commissioner and allowed it to become final. From the aforesaid conduct of the assessee it can safely be presumed that there was no intention on his part to throw the house property in question in the common hotchpot of the Hindu undivided family. He did not make any fresh declaration nor intended to throw the house property in question into the common hotchpot of the Hindu undivided family ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
