- (1.) THIS is a reference under S. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961 at the instance of the Revenue to answer the following question of law namely : "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that income from assets acquired by the assessee on the death of his father is assessable in the status of HUF in the hands of the son notwithstanding the provisions of ss. 6 and 8 Hindu Succession Act, 1956 ?"
(2.) THE relevant assessment years are 1975-76 to 77-78. The point involved for decision is the same as in IT Ref No. 12 of 1982 since reporters CIT vs. M. M. Jain (1988) 72 CTR (Raj) 55. We have stated therein that it is a settled principle of law that even the self-acquired property of the father dying intestate coming to the son is to be treated as ancestral property in the hands of the son. Accordingly, the Tribunal's view taken in favour of the assessee is justified. Consequently, the reference is answered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee by upholding that the Tribunal's view is justified. No costs. IT Ref. No. 6 of 1983 This is a reference under S. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961 at the instance of the Revenue to answered the following question of law namely : "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, was the Tribunal justified in holding that income from assets acquired by the assessee on the death of his father is assessable in the status of HUF in the hands of the son, notwithstanding the provisions of ss. 6 and 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956?"
(3.) THE relevant assessment year is 1978-79 and 79-80. The involved for decision is the same as in IT Ref. Nos. 12 of 1982 since reported as CIT vs. M. M. Jain (supra). We have stated therein that it is a settled principle of law that even the self-acquired property of the father dying intestate coming to the son is to be treated as ancestral property in the hands of the son. Accordingly, the Tribunal's view taken in favour of the assessee is justified.;