Case Details

Citation(s)
2009 SLG 2245 2009 SLD 2245 (2009) 308 ITR 373
Patna High Court
M.A. No. 76 OF 2007 (DB) AND CWJC No. 497 OF 2008 APRIL 16, 2008
BARIN GHOSH AND C.M. PRASAD, JJ.

Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395

Bengali Singh

v.

Commissioner of IncomE tax

Law:

Section:

Section 4 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Hindu Undivided Family - Assessable as Where land upon which building was constructed belonged to assessee-HUF and though assessee claimed that there was family arrangement leading to disruption of family, there was no evidence of any family arrangement to show that partition of family took place, income from such property was assessable in assessee's hands [Assessment year 1998-99] [In favour of revenue] Bengali Singh v. CIT [2009] 308 ITR 393 (Pat.) One SD claimed to be one of the eight owners of a building. However, it was held by the Assessing Officer that she was not a part owner of the building in question and that the true owner of the building in question was the assessee-HUF. There was no dispute that the land upon which the said building was constructed belonged to the assessee. The assessee contended that the joint Hindu family stood disrupted by reason of a family arrangement entered in the first week of April, 1989, which was recorded subsequently in a deed of arrangement dated 21-4-1989. It was the contention of the assessee that by reason of disruption of undivided Hindu family, the members of the family obtained specific shares in the properties belonging to the joint family and those had been specified in the said deed of family arrangement. Held that it had come on record that subsequent to 21-4-1989, i.e., the date of the deed of family arrangement, B, his wife and their sons granted a lease of a part of the building constructed on the said land in favour of TISCO Ltd. and for that purpose got a lease deed dated 28-12-1989, registered. In that B described himself as the father of his sons and karta of joint family, comprising himself, his wife and his major sons. His minor sons also had been represented by him as their father and natural guardian in the said deed. It was the contention of the assessee that under the partition of April, 1989, some of the sons of B obtained exclusive share in properties situated at Danapur, but not anything in property in question. It was contended that in such situation, citation of B as karta of the joint family of himself, his wife and his major sons in the said deed…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492