9911796707
TMI Blog1992 (9) TMI 14X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n Referred Case No. 45 of 1987, which arises under the Wealth-tax Act, the following question of law is referred to this court for opinion: " Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal erred in law in holding that the value of the house and the site in question is assessable entirely as the property of the smaller Hindu undivided family consisting of the assessee and his wife ? " As the abovesaid questions of law arose out of the same facts relating to the property in question, both the cases were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. The assessee was the karta of a Hindu undivided family which consisted of himself and his four sons. The family effected a partition and a partit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ground that the same was in the possession of the assessee's father. The Wealth-tax Officer, not being satisfied with the explanation given by the assessee, passed orders assessing the capital value of the land as well as the house for the assessment year 1964-65 and also for subsequent years 1965-66 to 1971-72. Similarly, the Income-tax Officer also assessed the income from the said house for the years 1964-65 to 1972-73. On appeal, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner allowed the appeal. The Revenue carried the matter in appeal before the Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal allowed the appeal of the Revenue and held that the income and the property were rightly brought to tax under the Income-tax Act as well as under the Wealth-tax Act. L ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... partition, the land to an extent of ac. 50.00 was kept joint on the ground that it was incapable of division. Later, the assessee held an extent of ac. 15.90 cents of land out of the said extent of ac. 50.00, for which patta was granted by the settlement officer in the year 1959. The fact of partition was brought to the notice of the Income-tax Officer under section 25A of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, by filing an application for recognition of the partition, which was accepted by the Income-tax Department. Consequently, there was disruption of the joint family. On the ground that some disputes arose between the assessee and his sons, a declaration was executed by the assessee purporting to throw the said house into the common hotchpot ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d the assessee was not a member of the joint family as on that date, and, therefore, the property could not have been brought to the common hotchpot of the joint family, which was not in existence at that time. In this connection, the Tribunal relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Joint Family of Udayan Chinubhai v. CIT [1967] 63 ITR 416. In our view, the conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal that the family got disrupted when the order under section 25A was passed in pursuance of the registered partition deed dated June 26, 1955, and the Hindu undivided family consisting of the assessee and his four sons ceased to exist thereafter is right. We may also observe here that this finding of the Tribunal is not seriously questioned befo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
