1987 (1) TMI 129

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rried. The partition had been accepted by the department under section 171(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessee got married on 12-11-1979. The assessee was showing this asset (wealth of Rs. 3,93,547) in his individual return before the assessment year 1980-81. Since he was married as on the relevant valuation date (31-3-1980), he excluded this asset in his individual assessment for 1980-81. He had maintained the books of account of the HUF from 7-11-1979 and the accounting period of this smaller HUF ended on 7-11-1980. This asset was shown in the HUF return for 1981-82. 3. It was claimed before the WTO that this wealth was the asset of the HUF consisting of himself and his wife as on the valuation date (31-3-1980) and, therefore,....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d on 7-11-1979 and a son was born on 16-8-1980. The question is about the character of the property (Rs. 3,93,547) in the hands of the assessee as on the valuation date concerned to this assessment, namely, 31-3-1980. 7. Shri Jhaveri drew support from the decisions of the Supreme Court in the cases of Gowli Buddanna v. CIT [1966] 60 ITR 293 and N. V. Narendranath v. CWT [1969] 74 ITR 190 to contend that there need not be at least two male members to form a HUF and that a joint family could be composed of a single coparcener and his wife like the case of the assessee before us. For that he stated that there could be a joint family consisting of only lady members, relying upon the Supreme Court's decision in CIT v. RM. AR. AR. Veerappa Che....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... married on 7-11-1979. The fact situation in the case before us is that the property was got by the coparcener at a partition when he was unmarried. 10. In Mulla's Hindu Law, Fifteenth edn., p. 301, a 'property obtained as his share on partition by a coparcener who has no male issue', is listed as one of the items of separate property - article 230(6). Again in article 223, it is observed: "... The essential feature of ancestral property according to the Mitakshara law is that the sons, grandsons and great-grandsons of the person who inherits it, acquire an interest in it by birth. Their rights attach to it at the moment of their birth. Thus if a inherits property, whether movable or immovable from his father or father's father, or fa....