1990 (12) TMI 169

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....eturn for the assessment year 1983-84 the assessee admitted the value of this house property at Rs. 1,16,270. This value was arrived at under section 7(4) of the Wealth-tax Act on the ground that this property was exclusively used by the assessee for residential purposes throughout the period of 12 months immediately preceding the valuation date, i.e., 31-3-1983. However, the Wealth-tax Officer rejected this claim of the assessee and valued the same at Rs. 1,73,052 and completed the assessment accordingly. Aggrieved by this, the assessee preferred an appeal to the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). Before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), it was contended on behalf of the assessee that though the partition of the joint family pro....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r to 1-4-1971. Partition of the joint family properties took place on 2-6-1976 whereunder the property at No. 333A, Avinashi Road, Coimbatore, was allotted to the share of the assessee. The benefit of the provisions contained in section 7(4) of the Wealth-tax Act would be available to the assessee provided this property at No. 333A Avinashi Road, belonged to the assessee on 1-4-1971 and was exclusively used by him for residential purposes for the specified time. Therefore, the question that comes up for consideration is, whether the property at No. 333A, Avinashi Road, can be said to belong to the assessee as on 1-4-1971. While dealing with the attributes of a Hindu coparcenary, the Supreme Court in the case of State Bank of India v. Ghaman....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tion, therefore, is not a transfer within the meaning of section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act." The above view was subsequently affirmed by the Supreme Court in the case of Kuppuswami Chettiar v. A.S.P.A. Arumugam Chettiar AIR 1967 SC 1395. 6. From the aforementioned decisions, it is seen that a partition of a HUF property involves no transfer and it does not confer a new title to the person to whom the property is allotted which he does not already possess in that property. On the other hand, partition only defines specifically the rights of the individual coparcener which were already existing in the joint family property. Thus, the assessee did have ownership in the property at No. 333A, Avinashi Road, as a coparcener of HUF even....