9911796707
TMI Blog1986 (6) TMI 2X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is whether, having regard to the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, and the fact that the assessee being governed by the Mitakshara School of Hindu Law, his status would be that of an individual and not that of a Hindu undivided family relating to the properties and business inherited by him. The relevant facts may be shortly noted. In the assessment years 1969-70 and 1971-72, Ram Gopal Thirani, the assessee, claimed that the properties which he had inherited from his father, Iswardas Thirani, deceased, were his personal properties and not joint properties of the Hindu undivided family of which he was the karta and the income thereof could not be assessed as income of the Hindu undivided family. The Income-tax Officer rejected ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wo unmarried daughters were the members of a Hindu undivided family. It was further found that this family at the material time stood divided and all properties were duly partitioned by a registered deed dated February 23, 1959. Under the deed of partition, Iswardas received properties which are in issue in this case and in respect thereof was assessed as an individual in respect of the income of these properties. On the death of Iswardas in 1963, the widow and the daughters relinquished their interest in the properties which had been allotted to Iswardas on partition. On these facts, it was held by this court that on the death of Iswardas, his individual properties had been inherited by the widow, the sons and the daughters in equal shares ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as High Court in Arunachalathammal v. Ramachandran Pillai, AIR 1963 Mad 255. This decision of the Madras High Court was affirmed by the Supreme Court by its judgment dated February 20, 1970, in Civil Appeal No. 115 of 1967 (reported in [1971] 3 SCC 847). The Supreme Court observed that section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act had no application to the properties received by the members of the joint family by partition. This judgment of the Supreme Court has been referred to in AIR 1972 Mad 264 (Tirupurasundari Ammal v. Srinivasam Pillai.) and is reported as Ramachandra Pillai v. Arunachalathammal in [1971] 3 SCC 847. It appears that the controversy, if any, in the matter has been set at rest by the Supreme Court by the aforesaid observation. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
