9911796707
TMI Blog1986 (6) TMI 18X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... from that of individual property to that of joint family property ? " One Ramalingam Chettiar died intestate in October, 1962, leaving behind him his widow Rajathy Ammal, the assessee in this case, as his sole heir. On December 14, 1969, the widow adopted a minor child, Ashok. The properties in question originally belonged to the deceased, Ramalingam Chettiar, he having obtained the same under a family partition. For the assessment year 1970-71, the assessee submitted a return under the Wealth-tax Act and claimed the properties is joint family properties in view of the adoption of the minor child, Ashok. The Income-tax. Officer, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Tribunal held that on the death of Ramalingam Chettiar, his widow ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and covered by at least two judgments of the Supreme Court. In the decision in Punithavalli Ammal v. Ramalingam, AIR 1970 SC 1730, the Supreme Court had held after referring to the relative provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, and the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, that the full ownership conferred on a Hindu female under section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act is not defeasible by the adoption made by her to her deceased husband after the Act came into force. The Supreme Court further observed that the rights conferred on a Hindu female under section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act are not restricted or limited by any rule of Hindu law, and that provision makes a clear departure from the Hindu law texts or rules, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... already vested in the widow. On the question whether there is any throwing of the properties by the widow into the hotchpotch of the joint family properties, we agree with the Tribunal that the contention of the assessee will have to be rejected. Firstly, as held by the Supreme Court in Pushpa Devi v. CIT [1977] 109 ITR 730, a female member of the joint family could not blend her separate property, even if she were an absolute owner thereof, with the joint family property, and that the right to blend was limited only to coparceners. She could achieve the purpose of making it Hindu undivided family property by gifting it to the Hindu undivided family or allowing the Hindu undivided family to purchase it from her. In this case, no such throw ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
