Law:

Section:

Section 4 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Hindu undivided family - Assessability of - Assessee was allotted share in partition of HUF in 1956 when he was a minor - He married in 1966 and claimed that he should be assessed in status of HUF - Whether, on marriage assessee's status automatically changed and his claim should have been accepted - Held, on facts, no FACTS The assessee who was a member of a HUF was allotted share in the HUF property on its partition. At the time of partition in 1956 the assessee was minor and was assessed in the status of an individual. He was married in 1966 but had no issue. After the marriage he claimed that he should be assessed in the status of a HUF but the claim was rejected by the ITO and AAC also. On second appeal, however, the Tribunal held that after his marriage in March, 1966 the assessee would have constituted a HUF even when no son was born to him. On reference : HELD That even after marriage the assessee had unlimited rights of ownership to his separate property, and marriage could not change that legal position. After his marriage his wife could not challenge or object to any alienation of the property by the assessee. Obviously, as yet there was no child of the wedlock and if the wife had no right to assail any alienation, one of the basic concepts of limited ownership in a HUF family would be conspicuous by its absence. Therefore, mere marriage by itself would not convert separate property and individual income-tax status to that of a HUF. Even marriage with female issue would not convert individual status for purpose of income-tax into a HUF. The Tribunal was, therefore, not correct in law in holding that the status of the assessee after the marriage was that of an HUF and not that of an individual. CASE REVIEW CIT v. Vishnukumar Bhaiya [1983] 142 ITR 357 (MP) and Surjit Lal Chhabda v. CIT [1975] 101 ITR 776 (SC) followed & relied upon. CASES REFERRED TO Kalyanji Vithaldas v. CIT [1937] 5 ITR 90 (PC), C. Krishna Prasad v. CIT [1974] 97 ITR 493 (SC),Surjit Lal Chhabda v. CIT [1975] 101 ITR 776 (SC) and CIT v. Vishnukumar Bhaiya [1983] 142 ITR 357 (MP). B.P. Rajgarhia and S.K. Sharan for the Applicant. S.B.…

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