9911796707
TMI Blog1989 (5) TMI 9X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... family and in directing exclusion of the said income from total income of the assessee's family?" The material facts bearing on the question referred to us are stated hereafter. The assessee family is governed by the Dayabhaga school of Hindu law. Formerly, the entire property belonged to a Hindu undivided family which consisted of four brothers, Satindra, Narendra, Prafulla and Radheshyam. Satindra died leaving behind him his two sons, Bhairab and Gopal. Thereafter the Hindu undivided family consisted of five members, namely, Bhairab and Gopal, the sons of Satindra (deceased) and their uncles Narendra, Prafulla and Radheyshyam. There is no dispute that, till before the previous year 1364 B.S. relevant for the assessment year 1958-59, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the different members of the family in the said property being definite and ascertainable, the case would be governed by section 9(3) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, and, therefore, the income from the Schedule 'B' property remaining after the gift would not be assessable in the hands of the Hindu undivided family. He argued that the individual members of the family were, in view of the specific terms of section 9(3), liable to be assessed on their respective shares in such property separately. He relied on the decision of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Biswa Ranjan Sarvadhikary v. ITO [1963] 47 ITR 927. Following the said judgment in the case of Biswa Ranjan Sarvadhikary [1963] 47 ITR 927 (Cal), the Tribunal held that the in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the properties belonging to them jointly and they are in joint possession. Therefore, the provisions of section 9(3) of the old Act and section 26 of the new Act are applicable in the matter of assessment of their respective income from the property. In Biswa Ranjan Sarvadhikary [1963] 47 ITR 927 (Cal) and numerous decisions thereafter including CWT v. Bishwanath Chatterjee [1976] 103 ITR 536 (SC), this court and the Supreme Court consistently held that income from house properties which are in joint possession of the coparceners of a Hindu undivided family governed by the Dayabhaga school of Hindu law should be assessed separately in their individual hands in proportion to their shares in the family properties under section 9(3) of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
