9911796707
TMI Blog1983 (1) TMI 74X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed in the hands of the HUF consisting of Shri Vishnukumar Bhaiya and his wife and that his status could not be treated as individual after his marriage ? " The facts giving rise to this reference are as follows, The assessee, Vishnukumar Bhaiya, received certain assets on partition of the HUF of Shri Ramnivas Bhaiya on October 24, 1965. By order passed on April 25, 1970, the ITO recognised this partition under s. 171 of the I.T. Act. The assessee was unmarried at the time of partition. The income from the share of the joint family property received by the assessee was assessed in his individual capacity up to the assessment year 1973-74. On May 17, 1973, the assessee got married. Thereafter the assessee filed two returns for the accountin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CIT [1966] 60 ITR 293 (SC). In C. Krishna Prasad's case, however, the Supreme Court held that the assessment in the status of an HUF can be made only when there are two or more members of the HUF. Thus a single member, either male or female, cannot constitute an HUF. The assessee, therefore, filed returns of his income in his status as an individual up to May 17, 1973, on which date he married. The question that arises for determination is whether the marriage of the assessee made any difference in his status. The answer to this question has also to be in the negative in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Surjit Lal Chhabda v. CIT [1975] 101 ITR 776. In that decision the family of the assessee consisted of himself, his wife and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a Hindu and which he threw into the common hotchpot of the family and the property which he received in partition as a single member. In the absence of a son he has the absolute power of disposal over the said property. The position would be different if the property is devolved upon a person as a sole surviving coparcener without the joint family being disrupted. In the present case, as stated above, when the property was received by the assessee in partition he was a single member and did not constitute a family. His status was that of an individual. In the circumstances, the fact of his marriage did not alter the position and in the absence of son the personal law of the assessee regards him as the owner of the property received by him ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
