JUGAL KISHORE JAI PRAKASH Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following three questions of law :

(2.) WHETHER the Tribunal, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, was justified in holding that the gifts were void at law ?

(3.) THE law was considered by this court in L. Hirday Narain v. Commissioner of Income-tax, 1965 57 ITR 363. Apart from discussing the powers of the karta of a Hindu undivided family to gift ancestral movable property, it was also pointed out that the powers of a Hindu father in this regard extended beyond those of a mere karta. And then reference was made to the principle that where a transaction exceeded the well-settled limits contemplated by law, it was not void but only voidable, being open to challenge by the coparceners. Reference was made to the observations of this court in Jagesor Pande v. Deo Dat Pande, AIR 1924 ALL 51 that an alienation by the manager of a joint Hindu family without necessity is not absolutely void but is voidable at the instance of the persons- whose interests are affected by it, namely, the coparceners in the property. THE Punjab High Court also in S. Raghbir Singh Sandhawalia v. Commissioner of Income-tax, 1953 34 ITR 719 followed the principle that a Hindu father could gift a part of the ancestral movable property without the consent of his sons, provided the gift was within reasonable limits. We may also refer to a decision of the Rajasthan High Court in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Braham Dutt Bhargava, [1962] 46 I.T.R. 387, 399 (Raj.) where, after discussing the case law, on the subject, the learned judges observed :