| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1970 SLG 312 1970 SLD 312 (1970) 75 ITR 702 |
Allahabad High Court
IT REFERENCE No. 374 OF 1963, dated September 19, 1969
V.G. OAK, C.J. AND T.P. MUKERJEE, J.
Shanti Bhushan and Dr. R.R. Misra for the Applicant. B.D. Agarwal, B.P. Agarwal and Ashok Gupta for the
Respondent.
IT REFERENCE No. 374 OF 1963, dated September 19, 1969
V.G. OAK, C.J. AND T.P. MUKERJEE, J.
Shanti Bhushan and Dr. R.R. Misra for the Applicant. B.D. Agarwal, B.P. Agarwal and Ashok Gupta for the
Respondent.
Commissioner of IncomE tax
v.
Late Kanhaiya Lal*
Law:
Section:
Section 4 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [Corresponding to section 3 of Indian Income-tax Act, 1922] - Hindu undivided family - Assessable as - Assessment years 1956-57 to 1958-59 - Whether no registered deed of transfer is necessary for blending separate immovable properties of a coparcener with coparcenary properties - Held, yes - Whether, therefore, in instant case, execution of a deed of declaration in which coparcener declared that certain property detailed therein formed part of joint family property was sufficient - Held, yes FACTS The assessee 'K' was also the head of a HUF consisting of himself and his three sons. He executed a deed of declaration that certain property detailed in the deed formed part of the joint family property. The ITO took the view that that declaration in the deed was ineffective, and the property in question was property of 'K' as an individual. He was, therefore, assessed on that basis. On second appeal, the Tribunal held that the property belonged to the HUF and that it could not be assessed in 'K's' hands as an individual. On reference : HELD No formalities are necessary for the merger of a coparcener's self-acquired property into coparcenary property. No registered instrument is necessary. After such merger, such property cannot be treated as the coparcener's separate property. Therefore, in the instant case, no registered deed of transfer was necessary for blending the separate immovable properties of a coparcener with the coparcenary properties. The Tribunal was thus, justified in holding that the said separate properties of 'K' assumed the character of coparcenary properties, and consequently, were not assessable in 'K's' hands as individual. Note : Decision was in favour of assessee. CASES REFERRED TO CIT v. M.K. Stremann [1965] 56 ITR 62 (SC) and R. Subramania Iyer v. CIT [1955] 28 ITR 352 (Mad.). JUDGMENT V.G. Oak, CJ.- This is a reference under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. Kanhaiya Lal is the assessee. He was assessed as an individual for three assessment years, 1956-57, 1957-58 and 1958-59. He was also the head of a Hindu undivided family consisting of himself and his three sons. On November 19,…
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