Coparcener's blending of partnership interest with joint family property is not a transfer for income-tax purposes.
A coparcener may impress self-acquired property, including a partnership interest, with the character of Hindu undivided family property by unilateral declaration under Mitakshara law. That blending is not a transfer in the legal sense contemplated by section 60 read with section 63(b) of the Income-tax Act, because the owner merely renounces separate rights. Once the partnership interest is so blended, only the assessee's own share in the family, here 1/7th, is includible in individual total income; the balance is not assessable in the personal assessment.
Issues: (i) whether the assessee's share in a partnership firm and the amount standing to his credit in that firm, on being declared as part of the Hindu undivided family property, became joint family property; (ii) whether such conversion amounted to a transfer within the meaning of section 60 read with section 63(b) of the Income-tax Act; and (iii) whether only 1/7th of the partner's share income was includible in the assessee's individual total income.
Issue (i): whether the assessee's share in a partnership firm and the amount standing to his credit in that firm, on being declared as part of the Hindu undivided family property, became joint family property.
Analysis: A coparcener may impress his self-acquired property, including a partnership share, with the character of joint family property. The act of throwing property into the common stock is a recognised incident of Mitakshara law and does not depend on any physical mixing of assets. A mere possibility that the firm may suffer losses does not alter the character of the share as property capable of being blended.
Conclusion: The property was validly converted into Hindu undivided family property.
Issue (ii): whether such conversion amounted to a transfer within the meaning of section 60 read with section 63(b) of the Income-tax Act.
Analysis: The conversion of separate property into coparcenary property by the owner's own volition is a unilateral act and not a bilateral transfer. The owner renounces his separate rights and no transfer, in the legal sense contemplated by the section, takes place when the property is impressed with the character of joint family property.
Conclusion: The conversion did not amount to a transfer within the meaning of section 60 read with section 63(b) of the Income-tax Act.
Issue (iii): whether only 1/7th of the partner's share income was includible in the assessee's individual total income.
Analysis: Once the partnership interest had been blended with the joint family property, the income attributable to that interest was assessable only to the extent of the assessee's own share in the family. On the facts, that share was 1/7th, and the balance was not includible in the assessee's individual assessment. The result also accords with the clubbing provision applicable to the assessment year in question.
Conclusion: Only 1/7th of the share income was includible in the assessee's individual total income.
Final Conclusion: The reference was answered against the Revenue and the Tribunal's view was affirmed on all the questions decided.
Ratio Decidendi: A coparcener's self-acquired property, including a partnership interest, can be validly blended with joint family property by unilateral declaration, and such blending does not constitute a transfer for income-tax purposes.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
