Per Shri T. Venkatappa, Judicial Member - The assessee claimed that the house property at Innispet, Rajahmundry which he received under a will from his father as an HUF property and the income cannot be included in his individual assessment. The ITO did not accept this submission. He held that the intention of the assessees father that the property should be treated as joint family property is not clear from the will dated 7-8-1969 executed by him. Thus, the house property which the assessee got under the will dated 7-8-1969 is individual property.
Accordingly he included Rs. 1,000 as income from house property in his individual assessment. On appeal, the AAC held that the use of the words Puthra Pouthra Paramparya in the will dated 7-8-1969 clearly indicates the intention of the executor that he intended the properties to be enjoyed by his sons and their respective families. Thus, the gift was to the families of the three sons which was to be enjoyed generation after generation. Thus, the assessees share in the house property belongs to the HUF and the income cannot be assessed in the individual assessment of the assessee. Against the same, the revenue has preferred this appeal.
2. The learned departmental representative submitted that the language of the will clearly indicated that the property was given to the sons of the executors but not to their families. Hence, the AAC was wrong in holding that the property belongs to the HUF. The learned counsel for the assessee strongly supported the order of the AAC. He urged that the language of the will clearly indicates that the property was given to the sons and their families under the will dated 7-8-1969. He laid stress on the words Puthra Pouthra Paramparya, and submitted that it clearly indicates that the properties were given to the families of the sons of the executor. Thus, the AAC was justified in holding that the house property belonged to the HUF.3. We have considered the rival submissions. We have gone through the will dated 7-8-1969. The language of the will does not indicate that the properties were given to the families of the sons of the executor.
On the other hand, it is clearly mentioned in clause (4) that the four items of the property mentioned therein shall be taken over by his three sons with equal shares and enjoy with absolute rights to gift, sale from generation to generation. The words Puthra Pouthra Paramparya do not indicate that the properties have been given under the will to the families of the three sons of the executor. In M. P. Periakaruppan Chettiar v. CIT  99 ITR 1 the Supreme Court considered the use of the words heirs, executors, administrators and assignees used in the gift deeds. On the basis of the above words in the above case it was contended for the assessee that the gift was to the sons as heads of the respective families. The Supreme Court did not accept this submission. It was held as under : "Mr. Desai further pointed out that the gift was stated to be in favour of the donees and their respective heirs, executors, administrators and assignees which, according to him, indicated that really the object of the bounty were the sons as head of their respective families. We are unable to agree. It is clear from the deeds that the donors desire was to transfer the properties to the three sons whom he named and described as donees. It was not stated that the donees would take the property as head s of their family units. The use of words heirs, executors, administrators and assignees, context in which they appear, in our opinion, indicate on the contrary that the gift was to the sons absolutely, the property gifted being both heritable and alienable.
There is nothing in the two documents to suggest that the interest transferred to the sons was limited in any way ...." (p. 5) The above ratio squarely applies to the instant case. There is nothing to indicate in the will dated 7-8-1969 that the property was given to the families of the three sons. There is noting to restrict the enjoyment of the property with full rights by the three sons in their individual capacity. Thus, the property has not been given to the HUF of the three sons under the will dated 7-8-1969. They received the properties in their individual capacity. Hence, the income is assessable in the their individual assessments. We reverse the order of the AAC and restore the order of the ITO.