Blending separate partnership interest with family hotchpot shifts income to HUF assessment where coparcenary exists

A partner's voluntary blending of separate partnership interest with the Hindu undivided family hotchpot was treated as genuine, so the asset acquired joint family character and the resulting income was assessable in the family's hands where a coparcenary existed. The transfer-to-wife-or-minor-child provisions were held inapplicable because they concern assessment of an individual and did not govern this form of blending. On the separate facts of one assessee, there was no coparcenary son, so the income continued to be assessed in his individual hands for that year.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a partner who voluntarily throws his share in partnership assets into the common hotchpot of a Hindu undivided family can be assessed in his individual capacity or in the hands of the family; (ii) Whether the same treatment applies where, on the facts, there is no coparcenary son and the assessee's status remains that of an individual for the relevant year.

Issue (i): Whether a partner who voluntarily throws his share in partnership assets into the common hotchpot of a Hindu undivided family can be assessed in his individual capacity or in the hands of the family.

Analysis: The transfer of a partner's interest into the family hotchpot was found to be genuine and effective. Once the individual interest was impressed with joint family character, the asset became joint family property and the income arising from it belonged to the family. The provisions dealing with transfer to wife or minor child had no application because they operate only where the assessment is of an individual and the transaction in question was not a transfer attracting that mischief. The reasoning also accepted that, where there is a coparcenary, the family is the proper unit of assessment for income derived from such joint family assets.

Conclusion: The share income was assessable in the hands of the Hindu undivided family, not in the hands of the individual assessees.

Issue (ii): Whether the same treatment applies where, on the facts, there is no coparcenary son and the assessee's status remains that of an individual for the relevant year.

Analysis: On the facts of one respondent's case, there was no son and therefore no coparcenary in the relevant sense. In that situation, the principle applicable to a sole surviving coparcener governed the assessment, and the attempt to treat the income as family income could not succeed for that year.

Conclusion: The share income of that respondent remained assessable in his individual hands.

Final Conclusion: The revision petitions failed overall because the transfer of partnership interests into the joint family hotchpot displaced individual assessment in the cases where a coparcenary existed, while the lone case without a coparcenary son continued to be assessed individually.

Ratio Decidendi: When a coparcener genuinely blends his separate interest with the joint family hotchpot, the resulting asset becomes joint family property and the income therefrom is taxable in the hands of the Hindu undivided family, except where the factual matrix does not support a coparcenary status capable of attracting that rule.

---