| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2006 SLG 3336 2006 SLD 3336 (2006) 280 ITR 593 |
Bombay High Court
IT REFERENCE No. 138 OF 1988 AUGUST 9, 2005
V.C. DAGA AND A.S. AGUIAR, JJ.
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
IT REFERENCE No. 138 OF 1988 AUGUST 9, 2005
V.C. DAGA AND A.S. AGUIAR, JJ.
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
Dr. Prakash B. Sultane*
v.
Commissioner of IncomE tax, Kolhapur
Law:
Section:
Section 4 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Hindu undivided family - Assessable as - Assessment years 1981-82 and 1982-83 - Whether joint family property does not lose its character merely because at one point of time there was only one male member or one coparcener - Held, yes - Whether an assessee who has received share on partition of HUF property but subsequently gets married is entitled to be assessed in respect of the said share in said property in status of HUF - Held, yes FACTS The assessee was a member of a bigger HUF, which was partitioned on 1-1-1972. The income from the assets received by him on partition was assessed in the hands of the assessee as his individual income since he was a bachelor. When the assessee got married on 22-1-1980, he claimed that the income from the said assets was required to be assessed as HUF income, the HUF consisting of himself and his wife. The Assessing Officer, however, rejected the said claim and continued to assess the income as the assessee's individual income. On appeal, the AAC observed that the character of the HUF property did not change in the hands of the assessee just because he was the sole surviving member and it could not, therefore, be given the same treatment as would be given to the self-acquired property of an individual and accordingly, held that the income from property received by the assessee on partition should be taxed as HUF property during the period after he was married. On the revenue's appeal, the Tribunal set aside the order of the AAC. On reference: HELD The observation of the Tribunal that the event of the marriage of the assessee on 22-1-1980 did not bring about any change in the property which remained absolutely vested in the assessee, was unwarranted. So also the observations of the Tribunal that 'the share obtained on partition underwent a metamorphosis at the time of partition breaking the coparcenery tie and making the property of the assessee absolutely as individual property and there could be no second metamorphosis at the time of marriage on 22-1-1980. Such an occasion might arise on the birth of a son but till then the property would continue to be that of the same individual,…
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