Cit vs Shambhu Ram
2003 Latest Caselaw 709 Del

JUDGMENT

D.K. Jain, J.

At the instance of the revenue, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'B', New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') has referred the following question for opinion of this court :

"Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and on a proper interpretation of the Will of L. Acharaj Ram dated 28-10-1963, half share in the immovable property and shares in the companies etc. which devolved on the assessed on the death of his father were held by him in his capacity as Karta of the Hindu Undivided Family consisting of himself, his wife and sons and not in his individual capacity ?"

2. No one appears for the assessed. We have accordingly heard Ms. Prem Lata Bansal, senior standing counsel for the revenue.

2. No one appears for the assessed. We have accordingly heard Ms. Prem Lata Bansal, senior standing counsel for the revenue.

Since answer to the question raised in the present reference stands concluded by a decision of this court in the case of the assessed himself, we deem it unnecessary to state the facts. We may, however, note that the reference pertains to the assessment year 1976-77 and the issue raised is as to whether the property bequeathed in favor of his son by late Shri. Acharaj Ram by Will dated 28-10-1963 was to be treated as their individual property or property belonging to their branch of undivided family.

3. As noticed above a similar controversy came up for consideration of this court in CIT v. Shambhu Ram Soni (1982) 138 ITR 373 (Del) and it was held that there was no indication of the intention of the said testator that the property shared by the two sons equally be taken by them as ancestral property in their hands. It was thus held that the property which came to the share of the assessed was to be treated as his personal property.

3. As noticed above a similar controversy came up for consideration of this court in CIT v. Shambhu Ram Soni (1982) 138 ITR 373 (Del) and it was held that there was no indication of the intention of the said testator that the property shared by the two sons equally be taken by them as ancestral property in their hands. It was thus held that the property which came to the share of the assessed was to be treated as his personal property.

In view of the said decision, the question is answered in the negative, i.e., in favor of the revenue and against the assessed.

4. The reference stands disposed of accordingly.

4. The reference stands disposed of accordingly.