1982 (6) TMI 151

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....hat they do not form part of the net wealth of the assessee-HUF. 2. The assessee is an 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 dt. 19th April 1946. He then left a will dt. 5th July 1965 in which he stated that the properties which were his self-acquisition after the partition we....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the properties bequeathed could not be treated as the individual properties of Jumbulingam. 3. After hearing the revenue, we are of the opinion that the authorities below have missed the vital point that Sivasubramainam Chettiar, after having separated from the joint family, had absolute right to dispose of the shares of the property received by him under the partition deed dt. 19th April 1946 ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....cause they happened to be ancestral properties at an earlier stage. 4. However, it is pointed out by 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 property devolving by testamentary succession were individual properties of....