1966 (9) TMI 8

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....le concerned in this case were the self-acquired properties of the assessee ; (2) He divided those properties between himself and his four sons in the year 1954 and delivered to each of his sons shares in his movable and immovable properties ; (3) The partition in the year 1954 was evidenced by an unregistered deed ; and (4) That in the year 1957 he executed a registered partition deed, under which the division effected in 1954 with slight modifications was affirmed. It is the contention of the revenue that under the deed of 1957 the assessee gifted his properties in favour of his sons on November 10, 1957. If that contention is correct, then in view of section 3 of the Act, the gifts in question are exigible to tax. The Inco....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....een held to be possible even when the common hotchpotch is empty, i.e., even if there is no nucleus of the joint family : see the decisions of the Bombay High Court in Commissioner of Income-tax v. M. M. Khanna and Kisansingh Mohansingh Balwar V. Vishnu Balkrishna Jogalekar. This conclusion receives support from the decision of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income-tax v. M. K. Stremann. From the recitals found in the deed executed in the year 1957 it is clear that the assessee intended to divide his self-acquired properties equally between himself and his four sons. The division in question was made on the basis of Hindu law. That deed further provides that if any property was left undivided, the same shall be of the ownership of ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....h from the fact that in the partition deed entered into in the year 1957, it is specifically recited that if any item of property remained undivided, each of the sharers shall be entitled to an equal share therein. The contention of the learned counsel for the revenue that, in the absence of a formal declaration by the assessee that he had thrown his properties into the common hotch-potch, there could have been no blending and the mere purported partitioning of those properties is no proof of the fact that the properties in question had become joint family properties was not supported by any decided case. We do not think that the ratio of the decision of the Madras High Court in S. Parthasarathy v. Commissioner of Income-tax lends any as....