V. S. DESHPANDE, C. J.

( 1 ) THE question referred to us for opinion under section 256 (1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, (the Act) by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in this case is as follows :

"whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee being female member of the Hindu undivided family has no right to throw her self-acquired property into the common hotchpot of the Hindu undivided family and confirming the assessment of entire income from the said property in the hands of the assessee for the assessment years 1968-69 and 1969-70 ?"

( 2 ) THE assessee, who is a female member of a Hindu undivided family, is the owner of a house situated at 109148, Chanakya Puri. She purported to throw one half of the property into the hotchpot of the Hindu univided family by a declaration made on 30th March, 1967. On that basis she filed returns of her income showing 50 per cent of the income from the said property as her income, while the other 50 per cent of the income from the said property as being the income of the Hindu undivided family. The Income-tax Officer, however, held that the assessee being a female member of a Hindu undivided family was not competent to blend any part of her self-acquired property into the hotchpot of the Hindu undivided family. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal have both agreed with the view expressed by the Income-tax Officer. Hence, this reference.

( 3 ) IN considering the question referred to us the following considerations are relevant :

(1) The property half interest in which the assessce purported, to transfer by a declaration to the Hindu undivided family is immovable. There are two different ways in which such immovable property can be dealt with. They are (a) blending and (b) gift.

(A) Blending : Blending is very felicitously explained by the Supreme Court per Chandrachud J. (as his lordship then was) in Pushpa Devi v. Commissioner of Income-tax, New Delhi. (1977) 109 ITR 730 (1) at 738, in the following words :

"the theory of blending under the Hindu law involve the process of a wider sharing of one s own properties by permitting the members of one s joint family the privilege of common ownership and common enjoyment of such properties. But while introducing new shares in one s exclusive property, one does not by the process of blending efface on self by renouncing one s own interest in favour of others. To blend is to share along with others and not to surrender one s interest in favour of others to the exclusion of oneself. If a Hindu female, who is a member of an undivided family, impresses her absolute, exclusive property with the character of joint family property, she-creates new claimants to her property to the exclusion of herself because, not being a coparcener, she has no right to demand a share in the joint family property by asking for a partition. She has no right of survivorship and is entitled only to be maintained out of the joint family property. Her right to demand a share in the joint family property is contingent, inter alia, on a partition taking place between her husband and his sons (see Mulla s Hindu Law, 14th edition page 403, para 315 ). Under section 3 (2) and (3) of the Hindu Women s Right to Property Act, 1937, her right to demand a partition in the joint family property of the Mitakshara joint family accrued on the death of her husband. Thus, the expression "blending" is inapposite in the case of a Hindu female who puts her separate property, be it her absolute property or limited estate, in the joint family stock".

HENCE the assessee is a female member of the Hindu undivided family she could not blend half of her self-acquired property with the property of the Hindu undivided family for the reasons explained by the Supreme Court above.

(B) GIFT : Mr, M. B. Lal, learned counsel for the assessee argued that since the transaction purported to be one of blending cannot i

Click Here to Read the rest of this document