1982 (6) TMI 139

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the claim to exclude certain properties on the ground that they do not form part of the net wealth of the assessee-HUF. 2. The assessee is a HUF whose karta was T. S. Jambulingam. The father of Jambulingam, T. S. Sivasubramaniam Chettiar, effected a partition between himself and his three sons by deed dated 19-4-1946. He then left a will dated 5-7-1965 in which he stated that the properties re....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... The AAC was of the view that the will itself was only an attempt to partition his properties among his sons and, therefore, the properties bequeathed could not be treated as the individual properties of Jambulingam. 3. After hearing the revenue, we are of the opinion that the authorities below have missed the vital point that Sivasubramaniam Chettiar after having separated from the joint famil....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... cannot be treated as joint family properties merely because they happened to be ancestral properties at an earlier stage. 4. However, it is pointed out on behalf of the revenue that the ITO had taken another ground for rejecting the claim, namely, that the assessee had shown the income from those properties as the income of the HUF. In other words, the contention is that even if the properties....