TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1981 (11) TMI 82
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of Rs. 5,668 inclusion of which is under dispute, as above stated. 2. The facts pertaining to the issue are in a very short compass. Dalip Singh, Karta of HUF styles as M/s. Dalip Singh and Co. Out of total capital of HUF amounting to Rs. 43, 050 gifted only a sum of Rs. 5,000 to his daughter-in-low Kamaljit Kaur, wife of Joga Singh. Kamaljit Kaur invested the said amount in a firm styled as M/s. Raghbir Singh and Co., wherein she became a partner. The ITO in the course of assessment proceedings of the assessee-HUF included a sum of Rs. 5,668 on the plea that the gift made by the Karta of the HUF in favour of Kamaljit Kaur was void and while doing so he placed his reliance on the Punjab and Haryana High Court judgment in the case of CGT ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the case of Prem Bhai Parekh and Ors. is misplaced. He was fair enough to admit that since according to his own submissions the gift is void, the question of applicability of s. 64(1) for inclusion of the share of Kamaljit Kaur in the hands of Dalip Singh's HUF does not arise. According to him, because the gift was void the income earned by Kamaljit Kaur was the income of the HUF and the ITO was justified in assessing the same in the hands. 5. The ld. counsel for the assessee, Sh. D.K. Gupta. on the other hand, submitted that reliance of the ITO on the case of Tej Nath is misplaced. He submitted that the Supreme Court decision to which reference has been made by the ld. Depl. Rep., was considered in the case of Tej Nath and the said cas....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... has no such power with regard to ancestral immovable property or coparcenery property. He can, however, make a gift within reasonable limits of ancestral immovable property for pious purposes. The Supreme Court extended the rule in paragraph 226 to enable a gift of ancestral immovable property to a daughter if the gift is to a reasonable extent. But the rule seems to be firmly settled that a father has no power to make a gift of ancestral immovable property to his wife to the prejudice to his minor sons. So also is the rule that a gift to a stranger is equally invalid and the other members of the family need not sue to set it aside. This is what was observed by the Supreme Court in Guramma's case; 'The decisions of the Hindu Law sanctio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rs. in which it was held as under: '...........that the connection between the gifts made by the assessee and the income of the could not be said that income arose directly from the transfer of the assets. The income arising to the three minor sons of the assessee by virtue of their admission to the benefits of partnership in the firm could not be included in the total income of the assessee....' Though in the instant case, the clear submissions of the Deptl. Rep. are that the question of application of s. 64 cannot arise and it is not that section under which the Revenue wanted to club up the income because his own unequivocal submissions are that there is no gift but even if it is no gift as, according to him, the gift of the type w....