TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1982 (6) TMI 123
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....not admitted the value of LD's share for aggregation as per s. 34(1)(c) of the Act. The accountable person has also stated that there was a severance in status in the joint family consequent on partition of business capital on 31st March, 1968 and since then besides capital partition, the coparceners were holding the other properties as tenants-in-common and so it was urged that the LD's shares is not aggregable u/s 34(1)(c) of the Act. The accountable person has also filed a copy of the agreement executed between the accountable person and his late father. Since the Asstt. CED was of the view that it has not been stated in the agreement that the coparceners have expressed an intention to divide all the properties of the joint family but ke....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....llant contended that the assessee was an HUF consisting of late G. Chokkalingam Chettiar and his son Sri G.C. Murugesan. The said HUF was disrupted on 31st March, 1968 when the agreement was entered into for partition of the business capital. The agreement dt. 31st March, 1968 states as under: "This joint family business capital division agreement entered into between (1) G. Chokkalingam Chettiar, son of G. Ramaswamy Chettiar and (2) G.C. Murugesan, son of G. Chokkalingam Chettiar, businessmen, both residing at Chittoor, this is 31st March, 1968 as under: Till date we have been jointly enjoying the incomes from family business and other assets (both movable and immovable). Due to some misunderstandings between us since some time part, we ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... respective accounts. It was also stated that they agree to keep their other movable and immovable properties in common and enjoy the profits and losses therefrom equally since it was not possible for them to partition them now. From reading the said agreement as a whole, we consider that there was disruption in status of the joint family from the date of the said agreement. The other items of properties were allowed to stand joint since for the present it was not possible for them to partition the same. But, however, the profits and losses arising from these properties were agreed to be divided between them equally. It was also stated that there were three immovable properties. The first item of property, namely, a house at Gandhi Road, Ch....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the case of R. Jayapal Gowda, A/P to the estate of late M.R. Raghupathy Gowda Kadpanatham, P.O. Chittoor Distt. vs. The Asstt. CED, Ountur (EDA No. 52/Hyd/75-76) dt. 15th March, 1977 wherein the Tribunal on identical facts after extracting passages from Mulla's Hindu Law, as also another passages from "Hindu Undivided Family Coparceners & Income-tax Law,", 2nd Edn. 1975 by B. Malik and S.C. Manchanda held that the lineal descendants share should not be aggregated as per s. 34(1)(c) r/w s. 7 of the ED Act. 7. On a plain reading of the partition agreement dt. 31st March, 1968 one can definitely come to the conclusion that there was a partition among the members of the joint family with regard to the business capital. In so far as the other ....