Case Details

Citation(s)
1987 SLG 3170 1987 SLD 3170 (1987) 166 ITR 862


K. RAMASWAMY AND M.N. RAO, 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

A.V.N. Jagga Row

v.

Commissioner of Income Tax

Law:

Section:

Section 4 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Hindu undivided family - Assessability of -Assessee, and his lather B, constituted a HUF - They partitioned their properties by a partition deed - Subsequently B, by a settlement deed, settled half of share of his property to assessee - Said property was leased out and in relevant previous year assessee received certain amount of rent from said property - Whether in view of fact that B intended to settle hall share in said property in favour of assessee and not in favour of assessee's HUF consisting of assessee, his wile, and sons, aforesaid income received by assessee could be assessed as that of HUF - Held, no Facts The assessee and his father B constituted a HUF. They partitioned their properties by a partition deed and the property in question fell to the share of B. Subsequently B, by a settlement deed, settled half his share, obtained under the partition deed, upon the assessee. The impugned property was leased out and during the relevant assessment year, the assessee received certain amount towards his half share from the aforesaid leased property. The assessee claimed that B had intended to settle the property upon the HUP consisting of himself, his wife and sons and, therefore, the income so derived should be treated as the income derived by the HUP. To buttress the said contention, the assessee filed an affidavit sworn to by B, and the assessee also filed an account subsequently opened in the name of the HUF. The ITO disallowed the assessee's claim and assessed the income so derived in the hands of the assessee in his individual capacity. On appeal, the Tribunal also upheld the order of the ITO. On reference, the assessee, inter alia, contended that the strict rules of the Evidence Act did not apply to the proceedings before the assessing authority under the Act and, therefore, the substance of the transaction was to be looked into as corroborated from the surrounding conduct displayed by the assessee in receiving the property and treating It to be the joint family property and so considered, the property obtained by the assessee under the settlement deed was to be treated to be the property of the HUF and,…
🔒
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