Joint family hotchpotch principle bars treating partition of impressed property as an indirect transfer for anti-avoidance purposes.

Self-acquired property deliberately thrown into the Hindu joint family hotchpotch and then partitioned as joint family property does not amount to an indirect transfer to the wife or minor children for anti-avoidance purposes. The decisive point was the assessee's recitals and treatment of the properties as joint family assets, including prior common enjoyment and division after the property had acquired that character. On that basis, the statutory provision invoked by the revenue was not attracted, and the assessment revision could not be sustained; the assessment order was restored in favour of the assessee.

---

---

Issues: Whether the assessee's deed of partition amounted to an indirect transfer of self-acquired property to his wife and minor children so as to attract the anti-avoidance provisions and justify revision of the agricultural income-tax assessment.

Analysis: The document showed that the assessee treated the properties as joint family properties, referred to their prior common enjoyment, referred to an earlier partition of joint family assets, and then divided the properties among himself, his wife, and children. On these recitals, the property was first impressed with the character of joint family property and only thereafter divided. Such a process is not the same as an indirect transfer of self-acquired property to the wife or minor children. The legal principle applied was that a member of a Hindu family may throw self-acquired property into the common hotchpotch without any formal transfer, and the resulting partition does not amount to a transfer attracting the statutory provisions invoked by the revenue.

Conclusion: The revision order could not be sustained, and the assessment order was restored in favour of the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: Where self-acquired property is intentionally thrown into the joint family hotchpotch and thereafter divided as joint family property, the transaction is not an indirect transfer to the wife or minor children for purposes of the anti-avoidance provision.

---