1976 (12) TMI 48

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r the assessment years 1964-65 and 1965-66 ? " The assessee was the owner of property bearing Door No. 189/191, Ramnad Road, Madurai. On March 6, 1961, he executed a will, the relevant portion of which dealing with this property, reads as follows: " As regards the house property bearing Door No. 189 /191, Ramnad Road, Madurai, it is my desire that the property should belong to the Hindu undivided family of which I am the karta, the other coparceners being my sons. I have no separate interest over the property except as that of a Hindu undivided family. On my death my wife shall have the right of occupation of the property during her lifetime as a member of my family and after her death my interest in the property shall devolve on my sons ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....spect of the assessment year 1964-65 the Tribunal simply followed its earlier order. It is the correctness of this conclusion of the Tribunal that is challenged in the present reference. Since the conclusion of the Tribunal has been upheld by this court in the decision referred to above, following that decision it must be held that the conclusion of the Tribunal is correct in respect of the assessment year 1964-65 also, which is the subject-matter of the present reference. As would be seen from the question extracted already, it involves the assessment for the year 1965-66 also. In respect of this assessment year another contention was put forward on behalf of the department. That contention was that under section 63(b) of the Act, the un....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t to income-tax. The Tribunal rejected this contention on two grounds. The first ground was that since the expression "arrangement" occurs in section 63(b) along with the words "settlement, trust, covenant, agreement", that must also be bilateral and the unilateral act of the assessee, therefore, cannot come within the scope of the arrangement occurring in section 63(b). The Tribunal also held that even if the said unilateral act of the assessee can be considered to be an arrangement still there is no question of the arrangement being revocable because the power to demand partition on the part of the assessee does not emanate from the arrangement, but it is a power given to him by Hindu law. We are of the opinion that the conclusion of the ....