SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
9th November 1964
K. SUBBA RAO, J.C. SHAH AND S.M. SIKRI, JJ.
Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras Appellant
Versus
M. K. Stremann, Respondent.
Manilal Virchand, Intervener.
Civil Appeal No. 1105 of 1963.
Advocates appeared
Mr. K. N. Rajagopala Sastri, Senior Advocate (Mr. R. N. Sachthey, Advocate, with him), for Appellant; Mr. R. Ganapathy Iyer, Advocate, for Respondent; Mr. A. V. Viswanatha Sastri, Senior Advocate, (Mr. T. A. Ramachandran, Advocate and M/s. J. B. Dadachanji, O.C. Mathur and Ravinder Narain, Advocates of M/s. J. B. Dadachanji and Co. with him), for Intervener. 1495
INCOME TAX - Partition deed - Transfer of assets to minor children - Whether direct or indirect transfer - S. 16(3)(a)(iv) of the Income-tax Act.
Fact of the Case:
The assessee, an agent of Muller and Phipps Ltd., claimed that a partition deed executed by him on December 19, 1952, amounted to a transfer of assets to his three minor children, thereby attracting the provisions of S. 16(3)(a)(iv) of the Income-tax Act. The Income-tax Officer rejected the claim, holding that the deed was a mere donation of self-acquired property and that S. 16(3)(a)(iv) was attracted. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Appellate Tribunal upheld the Income-tax Officer's decision. The High Court, on a reference from the Appellate Tribunal, answered the question in favor of the assessee.
Finding of the Court:
The Supreme Court held that the partition deed executed by the assessee was not a direct or indirect transfer of assets to the minor children within the meaning of S. 16(3)(a)(iv) of the Income-tax Act. The Court found that there was an antecedent blending of the self-acquired property with ancestral property before the partition, and that the deed was evidence of a pre-existing fact, i.e., of throwing the self-acquired property into the hotchpotch.
Issues: Whether the partition deed executed by the assessee amounted to a transfer of assets to the three minor children so as to attract the provisions of S. 16(3)(a)(iv) of the Income-tax Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The Supreme Court held that the partition deed was evidence of a pre-existing fact, i.e., of throwing the self-acquired property into the hotchpotch. The Court found that there was an antecedent blending of the self-acquired property with ancestral property before the partition, and that the deed was evidence of a pre-existing fact, i.e., of throwing the self-acquired property into the hotchpotch.
Final Decision: The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that there was no direct or indirect transfer of assets to the minor children by the assessee within S. 16(3)(a)(iv).
Judgment
SIKRI, J. : This is an appeal by special leave directed against the judgment of the Madras High Court answering a question referred to it by the Appellate Tribunal against the Revenue. The Appellate Tribunal had referred the following three questions :
1. Whether there was material for the Tribunal to reach the conclusion that the various assets in question belonged only to the assessee in his individual capacity till 19th December, 1952 ?
2. If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, whether the deed, Annexure B aforesaid, amounted to a transfer of assets to the three minor children aforesaid so as to attract the provisions of S. 16(3)(a)(iv) of the Income-tax Act?
3. If the answer to the first question is in the negative, the Income-tax Officer having rejected the claim of partition under S. 25A and the assessee not having independently appealed against such decision, whether the assessee is entitled in law to any modification of the assessment other than the status alone?
Question No. 1 was answered by the High Court in favour of the Revenue; question No. 2 against the Revenue and question No. 3 in favour of the assessee. The respondent, M. K. Stremann, hereinafter referred to as the assessee, has not filed any appeal against the answer given to question No. 1 and this has become final. From the way the questions have been worded, we are only concerned with the point whether the High Court rightly answered question No. 2.
2. The facts relevant for the disposal of this appeal are as follows. The father of the assessee, Kulandavelu Mudaliar, was an agent of Muller and Phipps (India) Ltd., for the sale of its pharmaceutical preparations in Madras. While he was an agent, the assessee was employed as an assistant by the said Company. Kulandavelu died on July 27, 1938, leaving a house property at Ayalur Muthiah Mudali Street, a few insurance policies and income-tax refunds due to him. The assessee realised a total amount of Rs. 26,600 from these and with these proceeds he purchased a house at No. 3, Varadarajulu Naidu Street in December, 1945. There is no dispute that this property was joint Hindu family property.
3. On the retirement of his father as agent of Muller and Phipps Ltd., the assessee was appointed as agent in his individual capacity. From 1938-39 till 1952-53, he was assessed as an individual not only on the income from the agency but also incomes from joint Hindu family property. He maintained only one set of accounts both for his income from the agency and from J. H. F. property. In 1944, one son was born, and another son was born in 1945.
4. On December 19, 1952, the assessee executed a deed of partition and on its basis claimed before the Income-tax Officer, in the course of assessment proceedings for the assessment year 1953-54. (accounting year ending March 31, 1953) that an order under S. 25A be passed and separate assessments made on each of the members of the erstwhile family as from December 19, 1952. The Income-tax Officer held that the mere existence of any ancestral property, however, small would not render all self acquired property part and parcel of the joint family assets by the mere fact that the incomes are not separately accounted for. He held that there was no partition but simply a case of donation made by the assessee of his own self-acquired property and S.16(3)(a) (iv) was attracted. In the alternative, he held that assuming that the assessee s assets have been "thrown into the common stock and after becoming assets of the joint family was divided between him and minor children, S. 16 (3) (a) (iv) is again attracted because the said section applies to both the direct and indirect transfers of the assets to minor children...... It would have been an indirect transfer to minor children if the transfer is effected by the interposition of a joint family by a legal fiction. "
5. On appeal, art additional point was sought to be made by the asscssee that the commission business w
AI
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.