TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1967 (4) TMI 22
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....will refer to this document in somewhat greater detail a little later in this judgment. Under this document, he partitioned certain properties which, according to the recitals in the document, he had obtained by self-acquisition and also by a will, between his wife and other members of the joint Hindu family including two sons and three daughters. The Agricultural Income-tax Officer, Salem, allowed the assessee and the other sharers to compound the agricultural income-tax in respect of the properties thus partitioned separately. In the case of the assessee, for the assessment year 1958-59, composition was allowed by the Agricultural Income-tax Officer, Vellore, in respect of 53.50 acres of land. The same process of composition was repeated ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed above. It is against this decision that the revision case is now filed by the assessee. Learned counsel for the petitioner has taken us through the relevant deed of partition executed by Kandasami Chettiar. The crucial point to note in this document is that Kandasami Chettiar, after reciting that the schedule properties were obtained by him by self-acquisition and under a will, expressed that they had been theretofore in the common enjoyment of himself and the other members of his family including his wife and minor children aforesaid. He proceeds to say that the continued enjoyment of the properties in the same manner as before was not feasible because of misunderstandings among the members of the family. Then he refers to the fact t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dered to be a case where he has effected an indirect transfer of his self-acquired property in favour of his wife or minor children so as to attract the provisions of section 16(3) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The relevant decisions cited in this connection are M. K. Stremann v. Commissioner of Income-tax approved by the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income-tax v. M. K. Stremann. At page 66 of the report the Supreme Court observed : " When instructions are given that the self-acquired property is to be treated as joint family property, in our opinion, at that moment the property assumes the character of joint family property. On execution the deed becomes evidence of a pre-existing fact, i.e., of throwing the self-acquired prop....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... property in such circumstances did not amount to a transfer by the assessee of his property to his wife and child. We were also referred to an earlier decision of this court reported as R. Subramania Iyer v. Commissioner of Income-tax at page 361, where we find the following observation : " The assessee and his son undoubtedly constitute members of a joint Hindu family. They might have started with no ancestral nucleus or other joint family property ; but there was nothing to prevent the assessee from impressing upon any self-acquired property belonging to him the character of joint family property. No formalities are necessary in order to bring this about and the only question is one of intention on the part of the owner of the separat....