Delhi High Court (July 16, 2001) 2001 (TLS)125238 2001-DLT-93-213 :: 2001-AD (Del)-5-1125 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. Virender Kumar, Delhi Arijit Pasayat ( 1 ) HEARD. AT the instance of Revenue, following question has been referred for opinion of this Court by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench b (in short the tribunal ) under Section 256 (1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act ): "whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is correct in law in confirming the order of the AAC directing the ITO to take the status of the assessee as that of huf instead of individual taken by the Income-tax Officer ?" dispute relates to assessment year 1975-76. ( 2 ) FACTUAL position is almost undisputed and is essentially as follows : assesses received a sum of Rs: 55,400. 00 as th share out of the estate of his father by inheritance in August 1974. He filed a return of his income in the status of hindu Undivided Family (in short the HUF ), declaring an income of Rs. 4,280. 00 as in- terest on this amount. Assessing officer was of the view that as the estate left by the deceased was his self acquired property, the amount inherited by the assessee became his individual property and accordingly any income therefrom was taxable in the hands of the individual aind not in the hands of HUF. Assessee preferred an appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (in short the AAC ). Said authority placed reliance on the decision of the Gujarat High Court in CIT v. Babubhai Mansukhbhai, (1977) 108 ITR 417 and held that the status was to be taken as HUF. In further appeal before the Tribunal by the Revenue, the view was affirmed. One being moved for ref- erence, question as set out above has been referred for opinion of this Court. ( 3 ) WE have heard learned counsel for the Revenue. There is no appearance on behalf of assessee in spite, of notice. Learned counsel for the Revenue submitted that by operation of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (in short the Succession Act ) the property that devolved on the assessee was to be taxed as individual and not as that of huf . There is no appearance on behalf of assessee in spite, of notice. Learned counsel for the Revenue submitted that by operation of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (in short the Succession Act ) the property that devolved on the assessee was to be taxed as individual and not as that of huf . The Apex Court had occasion to deal with an identical issue in C. W. I, v. Chandersen, (1986) 161 ITR 370. It was held that: "it is clear that under the Hindu law, the moment a son is born, he gets a share in the father s property and becomes part of the coparcenary. His right accrues to him not on the death of the father or inheritance from the father but with the very fact of his birth. Normally, therefore, whenever the father gets a property from whatever source from the grandfather or from any other source, be it separate properly or not, his son should have a share in that and it will become part of the joint Hindu family of his son and grandson and other members who form joint Hindu family with him. But the question is: is the position affected by section 8 of the Hindu Succession act, 1956, and, if so, how? The basic argument is that section 8 indicates the heirs in respect of certain property and Class I of the heirs includes the son but not the grandson. It includes, however, the son of a predeceased son. It is this position which has mainly induced the Allahabad High Court in the two judgments we have noticed to take the view that the income from the assets inherited by a son from his father from whom he has separated by partition can be assessed as income of the son individually. Under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the property of the father who dies in- testate devolves on his son in his individual capacity and not as Karta of his own family. " the Apex Court took note of the decision of the Gujarat High Court relied upon by the AAC and held that the view expressed in the said case was not correct exposition of law. This view was again reiterated by the Apex Court in C. I. T. v. P. L. Kamppan Chettiar, (1992) 197 ITR 646. " the Apex Court took note of the decision of the Gujarat High Court relied upon by the AAC and held that the view expressed in the said case was not correct exposition of law. This view was again reiterated by the Apex Court in C. I. T. v. P. L. Kamppan Chettiar, (1992) 197 ITR 646. ( 4 ) ABOVE being the position, we answer the question in the negative, in favour of revenue and against the assessee. The reference stands disposed of. --- *** --- .