TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1984 (12) TMI 48
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eathed the business carried on in the above mentioned name in favour of his three grandchildren, viz., M. Subba Rao, Balarama Krishna and Ramachandra Srinivasa Rao " with equal rights and with absolute rights ". It is further stated in the will that the above grandchildren were empowered to take possession and enjoy the same with absolute rights after the lifetime of the testator. Majeti Subba Rao died in 1957 and later the bequests had come into effect. It is common ground that for the assessment years 1959-60 to 1975-76 (both years inclusive) returns were filed by the grandchildren describing their status as " individual" for the purpose of taxation. In the returns filed, they declared the income derived from the above mentioned business ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r the opinion of this court: " Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and on proper interpretation of the will dated September 22, 1954, executed by the grandfather, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the bequest was to the Hindu undivided families of the respective grandsons and not to these individuals ? " The question referred in all the references is almost identical. The learned standing counsel for the Revenue contended that the Tribunal was in error in coming to the conclusion that under the will dated September 22, 1954, the testator made bequests in favour of the respective joint families of the three grandchildren. It is pointed out that there was nothing in the will ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....levant time when the will was executed, that is on September 19,1954, the testator could have contemplated conferring benefits on the Hindu undivided families of the grandchildren, who were still young. The Tribunal referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in Arunachala Mudaliar v. Muruganatha Mudaliar [1953] AIR 1953 SC 495, as lending support to the proposition that what in reality the testator did was a partition of the property and not a simple bequest. In the first place, the will executed by the testator on September 22, 1954, does not lend support to the view that the testator was partitioning any of his properties among his relations. The business was obviously the self-acquired property of the testator. Even if he meant to par....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eir respective families. The Tribunal referred to the so-called subsequent conduct of the parties to justify the conclusion that they held the property for the benefit of their respective joint families. We consider that the subsequent conduct is totally irrelevant for construing the real legal effect of the will executed by the testator. If the subsequent conduct indicated a different treatment of the properties, it cannot follow that the testator gifted the properties under the will to the three grandchildren as heads of their respective joint families. In our opinion, the subsequent conduct is totally irrelevant for the purpose of determining the question. It seems to us that the assessees correctly understood their status as " indivi....