9911796707
TMI Blog1965 (3) TMI 108X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndu undivided family? 2. The facts as discovered from the statement of the case are as follows : The assessee is a Hindu undivided family governed by Dayabhaga school of Hindu law, which came into existence on the death of one J.K. Rudra who died intestate in 1939 leaving certain immovable properties and a widow Sm. Bani Rani Rudra as also a minor son. On the death of J.K. Rudra, his son and wife succeeded to the properly in equal shares. The question before the Income Tax authorities was whether the income from the house properties should be assessed in the hands of the individual members constituting the family. Both the Income Tax Officer and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner were of the view that Section 9(3) was attrac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hands of the owner. Section 9(3) lays down : Where property is owned by two or more persons and their respective shares are definite and ascertainable, such persons shall not in respect of such property be assessed as an association of persons, but the share of each such person in the income from the property computed in accordance with this section shall be included in his total income. This sub-section clearly lays down that where the shares of the owners are definite and ascertained, they are not to be treated as an association or persons. Therefore, they cannot be treated as members of a Hindu undivided family if their shares are definite. 4. Reference may be made to the position under the Daya Bhaga School of Hindu law in Mul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e shall have the same right of claiming partition as a male owner. The result of this was that on the death of J.K. Rudra his widow became entitled to the same share as a son and as he left only one son, she became entitled to one moiety of the property with her son. 5. By reason of the operation of the Hindu Succession Act 1956, Section 14, the limited interest which she got under the Act of 1937 was converted into that of a full owner. But for Income Tax purposes we have got to see whether her share and that of her son, who were the owners of the property, were definite and ascertained. If so, income from the immovable properties left by J.K. Rudra could only be assessed in their hands under Section 9(1) read with S.C. which could ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
