9911796707
TMI Blog1978 (12) TMI 13X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cord. She was the widow of one Srinivasan, who died on December 14, 1953. There was a partition between Srinivasan and his son, Thiagarajan, of certain ancestral properties under a deed dated April 8, 1953. On the death of Srinivasan, as he had not left any will, succession certificate was applied for by the assessee and her divided son, Thiagarajan, as the only heirs of Srinivasan in March, 1954. The succession certificate was granted in May, 1954. An extension of the succession certificate was granted in December, 1957, and again in February, 1962. On November 12, 1959, a deed was drawn up between Pappathi Anni and Thiagarajan under which there was an equal division of the properties left by Srinivasan. This document was styled as a dee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1, it was held that the widow took the property left by Srinivasan entirely, excluding the divided son, and that, therefore, the properties left by Srinivasan could not be assessed to income-tax in the hands of Thiagarajan, as the widow was entitled to the entire property left by Srinivasan to the exclusion of the divided son. As a result of this view expressed by this court in the case cited above, the GTO took proceedings under s. 16(1)(a) of the G.T. Act for the assessment year 1960-61, on the ground that the half share in the properties left by Srinivasan had been parted by the widow in favour of her divided son by the document dated November 12, 1959, and that this constituted a gift by her since the entire property was her own prope ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s and the security of peace and harmony between the parties ? (ii) Whether the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the transfer of property by the assessee to her son by way of allotment under the so-called partition was not a taxable gift within the meaning of the Gift-tax Act, 1958 ? " However, the Tribunal referred only the question set out in the beginning of this judgment. With reference to the question that was not referred there was a petition filed before this court in T.C.P. No. 214/76 and by an order dated June 19, 1978, this court dismissed the said petition. The result is, we have to deal with only one question that is set out already. It is not in dispute that if there is a partition, there would be no que ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and Thiagarajan, mother and son. It was on this supposition that the department levied gift-tax on a total gift of Rs. 1,73,500 made out of the share left by Srinivasan in the hands of the supposed HUF. We have to consider what operated in the minds of the parties at the time when they entered into this family arrangement in 1959. At that time, as mentioned already, the judgment of this court in CIT v. Thiagarajan [1963] 49 ITR 581, 585, had not been rendered. Even in that decision the Bench of this court expressed the view that " if the matter were res integra we would have been inclined to take a different view with great respect to the learned judges who participated in the decision cited above ". This court did not, however, express a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
