COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. GUPTA V C

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE following questions have been referred by the Tribunal at the instance of Revenue under s. 256 (1) of the IT Act, 1961 (for short, the Act of 1961):

(2.) THE respondent herein, the assessee, in the returns submitted during the period 1957-58 to 1971-72 declared his status to be an individual. He did not file returns for the period 1973-74 to 1974-75. When notices were sent to him under s. 139(2) and s. 148 of the Act of 1961, he submitted returns as individual but specifically pleaded that his status is HUF and not individual. THE Assessing Officer overruled this contention and also added to the income the capital gains derived on the sale of a plot of land which had been purchased by or in the name of assessee's wife. THE CIT in appeal upheld the view taken by the Assessing Officer. THE Tribunal, however, held the status of the assessee to be HUF and consequently held that the capital gain derived by his wife could not be added to the assessee's income under s. 64 of the Act.

(3.) THE controversy has been settled by the Supreme Court in Arunachala vs. Muruganatha AIR 1953 SC 495. THE Court referred with approval to the observation of the Judicial Committee in Rao Balendu 25 Ind App 54 that the father of a Joint Hindu family governed by Mitakshara law has full and uncontrolled power of disposition over his self acquired property and male issue could not interfere in these rights in any way. THE Court further held as follows :