Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1979 (2) TMI 42

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... and his son, Sundaram. He had also a daughter by name Kamalammal. On November 20,1969, he executed a settlement deed in favour of his daughter, Kamalammal, who was already married, and on November 25, 1969, he executed a settlement deed in favour of his son, Sundaram. The GTO issued a notice to the assessee under s. 13(1) of the G.T. Act, 1958, and the assessee submitted a return in which he admitted having made a gift of the value of Rs. 76,900. However he claimed that the gift was not taxable. The actual figure which should have been shown in the return was Rs. 49,370 and the figure Rs. 76,900 shown therein appears to be a mistake. The claim of the assessee that there was no liability to gift-tax was based on the ground that there was a .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e are concerned only with the gift in favour of the son. The learned counsel for the revenue submitted that the assessee had made a declaration before the authorised officer appointed under the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act and that such a declaration is effective, at any rate, to bring about a disruption in the family. According to the learned counsel, the question whether the authorised officer accepted the assessee's statement was immaterial so far as the gift-tax assessment was concerned, as the GTO was not bound by any order passed by the authorised officer under the Land Reforms Act. The assessee has been served with notice but is not present and is not represented, by any counsel also. The learned coun .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ch is a matter of individual volition. All that is necessary to constitute a partition is the definite and unequivocal indication of the intention by a member of a joint family to separate himself from the family and enjoy his share in severalty. There should be an intimation or indication or manifestation of such intention, and in what form the intimation or indication should take place would depend upon the circumstances of each case. The manifestation or declaration of intention should, however, be to the knowledge of the person affected, for a mere uncommunicated declaration may amount to no more than harbouring an intention to separate. The assent of the other member is not necessary. The above propositions are noticed in the decisio .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... t express our opinion on the said questions, as nothing turns upon them, for, in this appeal, there are only two members in the joint family and it is not suggested that Subba Rao did not have the knowledge of the terms of the will after the death of Chimpirayya. " In a later case in Puttrangamma v. Ranganna [1968] 2 SCJ 668 ; AIR 1968 SC 1018, 1022, dealing with the same point, after referring to the original texts, the Supreme Court pointed out : " The correct legal position, therefore, is that in a case of a joint Hindu family subject to Mitakshara law, severance of status is effected by an unequivocal declaration on the part of one of the joint holders of his intention to hold the share separately. It is, however, necessary that the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... cer and we do not, therefore, know as to what kind of evidence was let in before him. However, on the question of intention to divide or the declaration of unilateral intention to divide, no better evidence is necessary than that of the person who made the declaration. In effect, it is an admission or declaration which is the best evidence that can be expected especially when it was made before a public authority, affecting the status of the person concerned. Whether that authority accepted that declaration or not is of no consequence as the status of a person in a matter like this is governed by his intention and not by its acceptance by someone else. As pointed out by the Privy Council in Venkatapathi Raju v. Venkatanarasimha Raju [1936 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates