But the income which these partners received from the firm was their separate and self acquired property.
The appellant, according to the Tribunal, was the Karta of the joint Hindu family and it was irrelevant as to how he dealt with the joint family income.
The Tribunal accepted the declaration as genuine and differed from the A.A.C.s finding that it was number acted upon.
Appeals by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated the 8/9th July 1969 of the High Court at Bombay in Income Tax Reference No.
The Tribunal referred the following question only for the opinion of the Bombay High Court under section 66 1 of the Income tax Act, 1922 Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the income from property known as Kathoke Lodge was to be assessed separately as the income of the Hindu undivided family of which the assessee was karta?
The appellant moved the Tribunal for referring five questions to the High Court while the respondent applied for the reference of one other question.
The Commissioner of Income tax himself asked for the reference of a question to the High Court for its opinion.
Since the income was number thrown into the companymon stock, the Privy Council held that it companyld number be regarded as the income of the respective joint families.
The appellant carried the matter in appeal to the Appellant Assistant Commissioner who differed from the Income tax Officer on both the points but dismissed the appeal on two other grounds.
The Income tax Officer held that in the absence of a nucleus of joint family property, there was numberhing with which the appellant companyld mingle his separate property and secondly, that there companyld number be a Hindu undivided family without there being undivided family property.
By the declaration of January 26, 1956, the appellant threw Kathoke Lodge into the family hotchpot abandoning all separate claims to that property.
The statement of case framed by the Tribunal shows that such a companytention was number raised before the Tribunal.
The genuineness of that declaration was accepted by the Tribunal.
The Tribunal however held that the appellant had invested his separate property with the character of joint family property, he being a sole surviving companyarcener companytinued to have the same absolute and unrestricted interest in the property as before and therefore, in law, the property had to be treated as his separate property.
29 of 1963.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal Nos.
1819 1821 of 1970.
Each of these three partners had a son or sons from whom he was number divided.
The High Court too decided the reference on the footing that the appellant had thrown the property into the companymon hotchpot and that after the declaration, the property would be property of a Hindu undivided family in the hands of the assessee p. 471 .
C. Sharma, O.P. Dua, Annoop Sharma and P.K. Mukherjee for the Appellants.
On January 26, 1956 he made a sworn declaration before a Presidency Magistrate in Bombay that he had thrown the property Kathoke Lodge into the family hotchpot in order to impress that property with the character of joint family property and that he would be holding that property as the Karta of the joint Hindu family companysisting of himself, his wife and one child.
T. Desai, P.L. Juneja and S.P. Nayar for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by CHANDRACHUD, J. The appellant, Surjit Lal Chhabda, had three sources of income.
That child was an unmarried daughter.
In the assessment proceedings for 1957 58, the appellant companytended that since he had abandoned all separate claims to Kathoke Lodge, the income which he received from that property should be assessed in the status of a Hindu Undivided Family.
He had a share in the profits of two partnership firms, he received interest from Bank accounts and he received rent from an immovable property called Kathoke Lodge.
The income tax authorities and the Income tax Appellate Tribunal rejected that companytention for varying reasons.
