SUBRAHMANYA SARMA M Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following questions for our opinion, viz.:

(2.) THE Tribunal in its statement of the case has stated that, though separate applications were filed by the assessee for referring the questions of law arising under the Wealth-tax Act, the Income-tax Act and the Gift-tax Act, viz., R.As. Nos. 1927 and 1928 of 1963-64 (W.T.A. Nos. 1714 and 1715 of 1962-63 respectively) R.A. No. 1929 of 1963-64 (I.T.A. No. 10117 of 1962-63) and R.A. No. 586 of 1964-65 (G.T.A. No. 20 of 1.963-64), in their opinion, a similar question of law does arise out of the said orders and, therefore, they were making a consolidated reference for the opinion of the High Court.

(3.) IN so far as the income-tax reference is concerned, the question is whether the property which is the subject-matter of the partition deed is joint family property or separate property. Admittedly, the property was self-acquired property of the father on the date of the alleged partition. If so, the only question for our consideration is whether the self-acquired property has become impressed with the character of joint family property. It is an undoubted proposition of Hindu law that a Hindu might throw his self-acquired property or separate property into the hotchpot or blend it with joint family property, or, by an unequivocal declaration of a clear intention, convert the whole or any part of his self-acquired property into joint family property (vide D. Sadasiva Vittal v. Bolla Ruttan, AIR 1958 AP 145). IN order to impress the self-acquired or separate property with the character of joint family property no particular method or formality is necessary. A mere declaration of an unequivocal intention to treat the separate property as joint family property will be sufficient. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court have gone to the extent of saying that even instructions given to a lawyer to prepare a deed treating the self-acquired property as joint family property would be sufficient to impress the self-acquired property from that moment with the character of joint family property. Sikri J., delivering the judgment of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of INcome-tax v. M.K. Stremann, , while repelling the contention that all the clauses of the deed took effect on the signature of the partition deed, and no moment of time elapsed between the alleged blending and partition, observed at page 8 :