9911796707
TMI Blog1987 (7) TMI 24X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Court in the case of Surjit Lal Chhabda ([1975] 101 ITR 776) and in holding that a sum of Rs. 1,60,000 thrown by the assessee into the joint family hotchpot on March 31, 1976 (it should be March 30, 1967) was assessable in the hands of the assessee in the individual status and not in the status of a HUF ? " The facts of the case giving rise to this reference may be summarised thus. The assessee is an individual. On March 30, 1967, he made a declaration on stamp papers that he had thrown his self-acquired amount of Rs. 1,60,000 in the common hotchpot of his Hindu undivided family consisting of himself and his wife. The Wealth-tax Officer found the declaration defective and also held that the said amount of Rs. 1,60,000 could not be said ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Department contended that the Tribunal has rightly relied upon Surjit Lal Chhabda's case [1975] 101 ITR 776 (SC) and N. V. Narendranath's case [1969] 74 ITR 190 has duly been considered in it. Admittedly, before the said declaration, the aforesaid amount of Rs. 1,60,000 was the self-acquired money of the assessee. In other words, he did not acquire it in the partition of a Hindu undivided family of which he was a member. It is further admitted by him that on the day on which the said money was thrown into the common hotchpot, his family consisted of himself, his wife and one daughter only and subsequently sons were born in the years 1969 and 1971. It is correct that N. V. Narendranath's case [1969] 74 ITR 190 (SC) related to wealth- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y may consist of a man, his wife and daughter, the mere existence of a wife and daughter will not justify the assessment of income from the joint family property in the status of the head as manager of the joint family. The appellant's case falls within the rule in Kalyanji's case [1937] 5 ITR 90 (PC), since the property, before it came into his hands, was not impressed with the character of joint family property. It is of great relevance that he has no son and his joint family consists, for the time being, of himself, his wife and daughter. Once it is realised that there are two distinct classes of cases which require a different approach, there would be no difficulty in understanding the implications of the apparently conflicting tests ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of a son but until that event happens, the property, in the eye of Hindu law, is really his. He can deal with it as a full owner, unrestrained by considerations of legal necessity or benefit of the estate. He may sell it, mortgage it or make a gift of it. Even a son born or adopted after the alienation shall have to take the family hotchpot as he finds it. A son born, begotten or adopted after the alienation has no right to challenge the alienation. " It is clear from the above-quoted extracts in Surjit Lal Chhabda's decision [1975] 101 ITR 776 (SC), that in a situation where the rule in Kalyanji's case [1937] 5 ITR 90 (PC) applies, the property thrown in the common stock of the Hindu undivided family continues to retain the characterist ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
