TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1978 (4) TMI 17
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sment in the year 1963-64, the WTO held that the status of the assessee was that of an individual, On appeal, the AAC confirmed the order of the WTO. There was a further appeal by the assessee to the Tribunal. It was contended in the appeal, inter alia, that the assessee's claim to be assessed as an HUF had been made on the basis of a declaration of the assessee made before at notary public on the 31st December, 1962. The assessee contended further that in the subsequent assessment year 1965-66, the WTO had accepted the assessee's status as that of an HUF and that even in the income-tax assessment for the assessment year 1964-65, the AAC had accepted the assessee to he an HUF. On the basis of the aforesaid, the Tribunal held that the sta....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....see's status should be that of an HUF. In support of his contentions, Mr. Bagchi cited the following decisions: (a) CIT v. V. K. Stremann [1965] 56 ITR 62 (SC). This judgment was cited for the following observations of the Supreme Court : " 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 property into the hotchpot. (b) Goli Eswariah v. CGT [1970] 76 ITR 675 (SC). This was cited for the following observations of the Supreme Court : " To pronounce on the question of law presented fo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in that property and treats it as a property of the family." Last cited was (c) Vrajlal Trikamlal v. CIT [1971] 80 ITR 299, for the following observations of the Gujarat High Court : " The law relating to blending of separate property with joint family property is well-settled. Property, separate or self-acquired, of a member of a joint Hindu family, may be impressed with the character of joint family property if it is voluntarily thrown by the owner into the common stock with the intention of abandoning his separate claim therein; but to establish such abandonment, a clear intention to waive separate rights must be established. There must, therefore, be some conduct on the part of, the owner which would show that he voluntarily threw....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....re that I have waived all my right, title and interest on the said properties as the exclusive owner thereof on and from 1st January, 1963, and I shall have no right, title and/or interest on the said properties otherwise than as a member of HUF." Apart from the decisions cited by Mr. Bagchi we also note the following decisions: (a) R. Subramania Iyer v. CIT [1955] 28 ITR 352, where a Division Bench of the Madras High Court held as follows : " Under the Hindu law in order that a joint family may exist it is not necessary that there should be joint family property. A father and his son constitute members of a joint Hindu family and even if there was no ancestral nucleus or other joint family property there is nothing to prevent the ....