1980 (2) TMI 158

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nto existence by any partition but came into existence because of a declaration made by the deceased on 10th Nov., 1969 bringing the deposit of Rs. 40,000 in the firm of M/s Parasmal Shantilal Jain & Co. In his individual capacity into the character of joint family property. The Assistant Controller took the view that the above impressing of the individual property with the character of joint family property would be disposition as per Explanation 2 to s. 2(15) of the ED Act. While the accountable person relied upon the ruling of the Madras High Court in case of A.N.K. Rajamani Ammal vs. CED(1), the Assistant Controller rejected the accountable person's contention abserving that the Supreme Court in the case of CED vs. Kantilal Trikamlal an....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....whereby unilaterally he threw his individual property into the hotchpot of the joint family and that as a result of this act, the sum of Rs. 86,296 belonged to the joint family. The question for consideration in his appeal is whether this act of the deceased throwing his individual property into the hotchpot of the joint family would amount to a "disposition" within the meaning of s. 27(1) of the ED Act r/w Explanation 2 to s. 2(15) of the ED Act. If the answer is in the affirmative the Revenue succeeds. If the answer is in the negative, the accountable person succeeds. This identical point came up for decision before the Madras High Court in the case reported in 84 ITR 790. Their Lordships categorically held at page 796 that the word "disp....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he Madras High Court in Ranganayaki Ammal and others vs. CED(3) had considered the earlier decision in Rajamani Ammal's case(1). At page 104 of 88 ITR, the Madras High Court referred to Rajamani Ammal's case(1) and observed that the question considered was whether the unilateral throwing of the self-acquired property by the deceased into the common stock of the joint family created a right enforceable against him personally or against the properties as contemplated in Explanation 1 to s. 2(15) that it was answered in the negative and that it was also considered whether such unilateral act of throwing the self acquired property into the common stock of the joint family would amount to extinguishment at the expense of the deceased of a debit ....