9911796707
TMI Blog1981 (2) TMI 41X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n: " Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the action of the Commissioner in vacating the orders of the Income-tax Officer was not justified?" One Chunilal Joshi died on July 23, 1969, leaving behind him his only son, Babulal, as successor to his self-acquired properties which consisted of one house and the share capital in a firm consisting of Chunilal and Babulal. Upon the death of Chunilal, Babulal treated the partnership business as a proprietary one and the share capital of his father was treated was loan from the HUF consisting of Babulal and his children, until, on October 18, 1971, the said capital was withdrawn and invested in the firm styled as M/s. Chunilal Babulal. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... perty had been inherited from Chunilal and, under misconception of law the properties had been shown to belong to the HUF. The Tribunal came to hold that the property inherited by Babulal was initially his own but in view of the consistent declarations in the returns that they had blended the property by putting it into the common hotchpot, it was enough for holding that the property following the blending belonged to the HUF. Once blending had taken place, the subsequent letter of 1974 could not take away its effect. Accordingly, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the Commissioner had gone wrong in vacating the ITO's orders in respect of the various years under consideration. The revisional orders of the Commissioner were vacated and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat it is necessary if the properties are to be impressed with the character of joint family property that there should be a clear declaration to this effect. This view of mine derives support from the decision of the Gujarat High Court in the case of CED v. Kantilal Bhailal Dave [1975] 100 ITR 577, in which the hon'ble High Court has observed that: 'Whenever a blending of self-acquired property with family property is alleged, a clear intention of such a member to waive his personal claims and exclusive rights from such a property must be established.' Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not convinced that the assessee has been able to establish that he intended to waive his exclusive right from the properties inh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
