The main legal point established in the judgment is that the status of the assessee and the character of the property as HUF or individual are determined based on the legal provisions and the Supreme Court's decision in N.V. NARENDRANATH's case.

Chitra Venkataraman, J.

These are the appeals relating to the same assessees case. T.C.No.184 of 2003 relates to the assessment year 1986-87. T.C.No. 185 of 2003 relates to the assessment year 1989-90. T.C.No.186 of 2003 relates to the assessment year 1987-88. T.C.No.187 of 2003 relates to the assessment year 1990-91 and T.C.No.188 of 2003 relates to the assessment year 1988-89. T.C.No. 791 of 2005 relates to the assessment year 1986 87. T.C.No.792 of 2005 relates to the assessment year 1987-88. T.C.No.793 of 2005 relates to the assessment year 1988-89. T.C.No.794 of 2005 relates to the assessment year 1990-91. T.C.No.795 of 2005 relates to the assessment year 1991-92. T.C.No.796 of 2005 relates to the assessment year 1992-93.

2. The questions of law raised in all the appeals are common and are as follows:-

(i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the status of the assessee was an individual?

(ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the property was to be assessed in the hands of the individual and not of the HUF of which the assessee was the kartha as claimed by the assessee?

3. T.C.Nos.184 to 188 of 2003 relate to Wealth Tax Act and T.C.Nos.791 to 796 of 2005 relate to Income Tax Act.

4. The assessee is an individual. It is seen that there was a family partition on 6. 1960 among the assessees father, P.K. Ramaswamy Konar, his two wives and his sons through them. Properties in one schedule was allotted to Mayakkal and her sons and another schedule to Ramakkal and her sons. There was yet another partition on 30.6.1966 among the assessee, his brothers and his mother. He was allotted house properties apart from certain agricultural lands. An extent of 3.36 acres of agricultural lands allotted to him on the partition was stated to be his mothers separate property. It is also stated that there was further partition among the assessee, his wife and his minor son as evidenced by partition deed dated 23. 1983. This was given effect to retrospectively from 11. 1978, on which date it was claimed that there was an oral agreement for partition. The assessee claimed that the agricultural properties of an extent of 3.36 acres received by him under this partition deed of the year 1966 and 1983 belonged to the HUF consisting of himself and his wife and hence assessable as HUF property. He submitted that the allotted properties belonging to his mother was purchased from out of the joint family funds in her name and hence, was a family property. The Assessing Authority held that the properties obtained in the partition deed dated 23. 1983 was a separate property and hence assessable under the status of individual. The assessee questioned this assessment in the appeal filed before the Commissioner of Income Tax. Apart from this, there were other issues raised in the appeal.

.5. The first Appellate Authority viz., the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) noted that there was a family partition as early as 1966 among the assessee, his three brothers and his mother. The assessee was allotted a house property at Thadagam Road, Coimbatore, to an extent of 5 cent site and 3.36 acres of dry agricultural land. Prior to the partition, the agricultural land was in the name of the assessees mother. Consequently, the Assessing Authority took a view that the property could not have become a property of HUF for a female member to blend the same with joint family property. Subsequently, there was yet another partition deed dated 23. 1983, which was given effect to from 11. 1978 retrospectively. In the said partition deed, properties at Thadagam Road, Coimbatore was allotted to the assessees wife. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) noted that even prior to 1966 partition, there was a total partition in 1960 in which the assessees father, on his partition, had given the properties to the children of his two wives viz., A schedule properties were allotte