TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1991 (7) TMI 117
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t source of deposit with M/s. Dhanwani Traders had not been explained. When the assessment was reopened the assessee stated that the HUF consisted of himself, his wife Smt. Chitra and his minor daughter aged 2 years by name Kum. Veena. It was further mentioned that Nichaldas Khubchand and Mitharam Nichaldas had made gifts of Rs. 40,000 and Rs. 35,000 respectively to the HUF of Nandlal Nihalchand and interest was earned by the HUF from deposit of said amount with M/s. Dhanwani Traders. The ITO held that interest income on the facts of the case could not be said to have been earned by HUF of Nandlal Nihalchand because there was no second male member in the family and there was no ancestral property. According to him, the amount received on gi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the ITO to assess the income of the gifted funds as income of the HUF of Shri Nandlal Nihalchand, which has only one male member. 2. The learned Dy. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in finding that there was no doubt that a HUF was in existence of which Shri Nandlal was the karta. The assessee has sent written submissions and requested that the appeals be decided after considering the written submissions. The submission on behalf of the department is that the amounts which had been gifted to the HUF would belong to Nandlal in his individual capacity because at the relevant time he was the sole male member in the family and as such income derived from said amounts would be assessable as income of the individual and not that of HUF. In t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... his wife and his unmarried daughter. The question was whether the income received by the assessee thereafter from the property should be assessed to income-tax in the status of HUF. The Supreme Court held that under the Hindu law till the birth of a son the assessee would be regarded as owner of the property in question and income from said property even after the property had been thrown in the family hotchpot was chargeable to income-tax in the assessee's hands as his individual income and not that of the family. In the present case of HUF of the assessee has received the amounts by way of gift from two persons. There is no qualitative difference between property received by way of gift and property received by throwing in family hotchpo....