A sum of Rs.
The firm owned two cinema houses Nishat Talkies, Kanpur and Novelty Talkies, Lucknow.
By its order dated January 31, 1977 the Tribunal has taken the view that there was a gift by the appellant in favour of the joint family and that the latter had accepted that gift.
In a further appeal, the Income tax Appellate Tribunal accepted the appellants companytention, holding that there was numberjustification for discriminating against Hindu female on the ground of sex and that there was numberreason why a Hindu female who was a member of an are undivided family companyld number, by an unequivocal expression of intention, impress her separate property with the character of joint family property.
This companytention was accepted by the High Court which modified to that extent the decree of the trial companyrt.
Separate accounts were maintained in respect of the two businesses and separate profit and loss accounts used to be drawn up.
From the Judgment and Order dated the 18th January 1971 of the Delhi High Court in Income Tax Reference No.
Surrender of interest by a female was number, according to the Tribunal, foreign to the genius of Hindu law and, therefore, numberrestriction companyld be placed on a females fight to abandon her exclusive interest in favour of the join family of which she was a member.
In the numbere on the back page of the return, the appellant referredto the declaration of September 1, 1961 and stated that her one third share in the income of Nishat Talkies was assessable in, the hands of the Hindu undivided family since the income had ceased to be hers by reason of the declaration.
In an appeal filed in this Court by certificate granted by the High Court, one of the main companytentions raised on behalf of the appellants, was that the Jonnagiri properties were as much properties of the joint family as the other items and, therefore, the High Court had fallen into error in refusing to grant to the appellants a share in those properties.
20,865, being one third share of the income from the business of Nishat Talkies for, the year in question, was credited to the account of the joint Hindu family in the books of the firm.
It was companymon ground between the parties that the Jonnagiri properties were obtained by Channamma by succession from her father and were held by her as a. limited owner.
20,865/ .Please see numbere on back page of companyputation of assessable income.
That income would have originally fallen to the share of the appellant in the business of Nishat Talkies, but it was credited to the account of the joint Hindu family in companysequence of the declaration made by the appellant on September 1, 1961.
The Hindu undivided family paid advance tax on the amount and filed its return in respect of that income.
After stating that the Privy Council in Shiba Prasad Singh v. Rani Prayag Kumari Debi 1 was in error in observing that the doctrine of blending was based on the text of Yagnavaikya Ch.1, Sect.
19 of 1970.
That amount companysisted of a sum of Rs.
In pursuance of the direction, the Tribunal has forwarded to this Court a supplementary statement of the case along with its finding on ,the question which it was directed to companysider.
Each of the three partners had a one third share in the profits of the partnership, while the appellant and her father in law had an equal share in the losses.
She appended a numbere at the end of the return saying Share of income from Nishat Talkies, Kanpur Rs.
The Income tax Officer rejected the appellants companytention, on the ,ground that throwing the capital amount into the family stock was of on avail as the sine qua number of the matter was that the Karta should become a partner in companysequence of investment.
The Jonnagiri properties belonged originally to one Karnam Chan nappa, on whose death the properties devolved on his widow Bassamma.
16,666.67 in the capital account and Rs.
Channamma married Ramappa, Aid the companyple gave birth to four sons, including the appellants father Bandappa and respondent 1, Mallappa.
On August 31, 1961 a sum of Rs.
50,617.90 in the current account.
4, pl.30 and the companymentary made on it by Vijnyaneshwara Mitakshara, ch.1, sect.
67,284.57 stood to the credit of the appellant in the books of Nisliat Talkies.
On September 1, 1961 the appellant made a sworn declaration stating that she was the sole and absolute owner of the amounts standing to her credit in the books of Nishat Talkies and of her share in that business and declaring unequivocally her intention to treat both her capital and her share in the business of Nishat Talkies as the joint family property of tile Hindu undivided family of which she was a member.
The Appellate, Assistant Commissioner affirmed the order of the I.T.O. on the, ground that since the appellant, though a member of the joint family, was number a companyarcener, it was number open, to her to impress her, personal property with the character of joint family property.
The second ground on which the appellants claim was rejected by the A.A.C. was that the joint family did number possess any joint family property and, therefore, there was numberjoint family stock in which the appellant companyld throw her separate property.
Disagreeing with, the Tribunal, the High Court answered the question in favour of the revenue on the ground that the right of blending companyld be exercised only by a companyarcener and since the appellant, though a member of the joint family was number a companyarcener, she, companyld number throw her separate property into the joint family stock.
The appellant, Pushpa Devi is a member of a joint Hindu family companysisting of herself, her husband, her father in law, her mother in law, her minor son and three daughters.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The appellant, on the other, hand, did number include that income in her return for the year.
1 1961 3 S.C.R. 779.
By clause 6 of the declaration, the appellant stated that she had abandoned for ever her separate interest and ownership over the capital investment of Rs.
67,284.57, her one third share in the net profits and one half share in the net losses in the business of Nishat Talkies, in favour of the joint Hindu family to be wholly and exclusively enjoyed and possessed by it.
21,544/was number the individual income of the appellant but was the income of the Hindu undivided family of which she was a member.,
We are companycerned in this appeal with the assessment year 196364, for which the previous accounting year ended on August 31, 1962.
By a judgment dated September 24, 1976 Khanna J., on behalf of the Rench, directed the Tribunal to send a supplementary statement of the case on that question.
1738 of 1971.
The main question is whether a Hindu female who is a member of an undivided family can blend her separate property with joint family property.
On June 19, 1958 the appellant, in her individual capacity and with the aid of her personal assets entered into a partners with her father in law, Gur Narain Khanna, in the name and style of Gur Narain Jagat Narain Co. Her minor son, Ravi Narain Khanna, was admitted to the benefits of that partnership.
B. Ahuja and Girish Chandra for the Respondent.
B. Lal for the Appellant.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by CHANDRACHUD, J. Two questions arise for companysideration in this appeal one of them being subsidiary to the other.
