He rejected the companytention of the assessee that his act of throwing his self acquired properties into the companymon stock did number amount to a gift under the Act.
Appeal from the judgment and order dated October 13, 1966 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Case Referred No.
The tribunal by its order dated November 17, 1961 held that the act by which the assessee threw his self acquired properties to the family hotchpot did number amount to a transfer and hence it need number have been effected by a registered document.
5 2 4 D. Karkhanis and T. A. Ramachandran, for intervener No.
v. First Additional Gift tax officer, Guntur 1 and the Allahabad High Court in Commissioner of Gift tax v. Jagdish Saran 3 have taken the view that when a companyarcener in a Hindu Undivided Family governed by Mitakshara School throws his self acquired properties into companymon stock.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Hegde, J. This appeal by certificate arises from the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court rendered in its advisory jurisdiction on a case stated by the Income tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench under s. 26 1 of the Gift tax Act, 1958 to be hereinafter referred to as the Act .
The assessee owned movable and immovable properties which were his self acquisitions.
Thereafter the matter was taken up in appeal to the tribunal.
In the books of account of the firm, necessary entries were made transferring the amount to the account a the family.
Sen, G. C. Sharma, R. N. Sachthey and B, D. Sharma, for the respondent.
A. Palkhivala and T. A. Ramachandran, for the appellant.
The Gift tax Officer treated that portion of the value of the properties so blended in which the assessee ceased to have a right on partition of the family as having been gifted by him to the family.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No, 695 of 1968.
The question referred for the opinion of the High Court was Whether the declaration by which the assessee has impressed the character of joint Hindu family property on the self acquired properties owned by him amounts to a transfer so as to attract the provisions of the Gift tax Act.
1 and 2.
1,50,000 in the firm of M s. Goli Eswariah, Paper Merchants, Secunderabad.
74 of 1963.
By a deed dated December 9, 1957, he threw into the companymon stock his houses bearing Nos.
The material facts as companyld be gathered from the statement of the case submitted to the High Court are as follows The assessee is the karta of his joint family.
6658 5 9 and 2731 situate at Imamba vidi, Secunderabad and a cash deposit of Rs.
the provisions of the Act.
The High Court following its earlier decision in Commissioner ,of Income tax, Hyderabad v. C. Satyanarayanamurthy 1 ,answered that question in the affirmative.
M. C. Chagla, M. Shankar and K. Jayaram, for interveners Nos.
The assessment year with which we are companycerned in this case is 1959 60, for which the previous year is the year companymencing on 23 10 1957 and ,ending on 10 11 1958.
In appeal, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner took the view that since the deed in question was number registered, there was numbertransfer of the immovable properties to the family and as such there was numbergift of the two houses mentioned earlier but with regard to the sum of Rs.
1,50,000, he companysidered it as a gift and accordingly held that 3/4th of it was liable to be taxed under 1 56 I.RT.R. 353.
