Judgment :- K. A. THANIKKACHALAM J. As per the direction of this court in T. C. P. Nos. 168 to 171 of 1980, dated July 21, 1980, the Tribunal referred the following common question in both the income-tax assessments for the assessment years 1973-74 and 1974-75 as well as the wealth-tax assessments for the assessment years 1972-73 and 1973-74 under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and under section 27(3) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is correct in law in holding that the declaration of the assessee to impress a sum of Rs. 4, 00, 000 with the character of the Hindu undivided family was effective from September 30, 1969, i.e., the date of declaration and not from March 30, 1970, when the entries were passed in the books and accordingly in directing to exclude a sum of Rs. 48, 000 assessed under section 64(2) of the Income-tax Act, for the years 1973-74 and 1974-75 and Rs. 4, 00, 000 assessed under section 4(1A) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, for the years 1972-73 and 1973-74?" * The assessee is an individual deriving income from the proprietary business called C. B. Muthusamy Chettiar and Co. The assessee claimed that he had by a declaration, dated September 30, 1969, impressed a sum of rupees four lakhs with the character of the joint family property. In the income-tax proceedings, the Income-tax Officer came to the conclusion that the declaration, dated September 30, 1969, should not be accepted as valid in the absence of corresponding and contemporaneous entries in the books of account and since the entries in the books of account, transferring a sum of rupees four lakhs to the credit of the Hindu undivided family were made only on March 30, 1970, and, therefore, the blending took place only on that date. Accordingly, the Income-tax Officer was of the opinion that the provisions of section 64(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, were attracted and added back a sum of Rs. 48, 000 which he estimated as the income that could have been earned by the Hindu undivided family on the said sum of rupees four lakhs. A similar addition was made for the assessment year 1974-75 also. 48, 000 which he estimated as the income that could have been earned by the Hindu undivided family on the said sum of rupees four lakhs. A similar addition was made for the assessment year 1974-75 also. In the wealth-tax assessment, the claim of the assessee to deduct a sum of rupees four lakhs out of his wealth was not accepted and it was added back as the wealth of the assessee under section 4(1A) of the Wealth-tax Act. This addition was made for the assessment years 1972-73 and 1973-74The assessee filed an appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner agreed with the Income-tax Officer that the declaration could not have been made on September 30, 1969, and that the assessee did not have liquid cash to that extent for transferring that sum as on that date. He upheld the estimate of the income to be added under section 64 of the Income-tax Act at Rs. 48, 000. So also in the wealth-tax appeals, the first appellate authority upheld the rejection of the claim of the assessee for the deduction of the said sum of rupees four lakhs and upheld the additions made under section 4(1A) of the Wealth-tax Act When these appeals came up for hearing before the Tribunal initially it was found that the authorities below had not given a clear finding as to the genuineness of the declaration after examination of the witnesses to the declaration. Therefore, by an order, dated August 3, 1977, the Tribunal directed the Income-tax Officer to examine the witnesses to the declaration, dated September 30, 1969, and give a clear finding whether the document was genuine or not. The Income-tax Officer by his letter dated January 3, 1978, has submitted the copies of the statements of the two witnesses and has recorded that both the witnesses deposed that the declaration was made on September 30, 1969. However, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner made a remark that the document was written on stamp papers purchased on August 7, 1967, and February 9, 1968, and the relevant entries in the books of the assessee were found on March 30, 1970. Therefore, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner doubted the declaration, dated September 30, 1969. However, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner made a remark that the document was written on stamp papers purchased on August 7, 1967, and February 9, 1968, and the relevant entries in the books of the assessee were found on March 30, 1970. Therefore, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner doubted the declaration, dated September 30, 1969. The Tribunal considering all these facts ultimately came to the conclusion that in view of the deposition recorded by the Income-tax Officer, the document was a genuine one which was, in fact, written on September 30, 1969In view of the fact that the assessee had made a declaration on September 30, 1969, it was contended that the interest of the assessee in the sum of rupees four lakhs was transferred to the Hindu undivided family on that date and, therefore, the provisions of section 64(2) of the Income-tax Act and section 4(1A) of the Wealth-tax Act are not applicable to the facts of this case. The Department contended that the declaration made by the assessee on September 30, 1969, should not be accepted because the assessee did not have enough liquid cash as on that date and the relevant entries in the account books were made only on March 30, 1970. Therefore, the authorities below were correct in rejecting the claim made by the assessee that he imposed the character of rupees four lakhs with that of a joint family property. However, the assessee pointed out that the assessee was having capital in his proprietary business to the extent of Rs. 8, 58, 679.79 as on September 30, 1969, in the name of the assessee and the Hindu undivided family had owed to the individual assessee a sum of Rs. 3, 28, 941.57. In the matter of blending individual property with that of the joint family property, it was submitted that it did not require any transfer of actual funds. Considering the submissions made by the assessee as well as the Department, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the assessee is entitled to succeed on this point. Accordingly, the Tribunal held that Rs. 48, 000 cannot be included as income of the assessee under section 64(2) of the Income-tax Act and rupees four lakhs cannot be included as the wealth of the assessee under section 4(1A) of the Wealth-tax Act. Accordingly, the Tribunal held that Rs. 48, 000 cannot be included as income of the assessee under section 64(2) of the Income-tax Act and rupees four lakhs cannot be included as the wealth of the assessee under section 4(1A) of the Wealth-tax Act. In that view of the matter, the Tribunal directed the Income-tax Officer to recompute the net wealth after taking the sum of rupees four lakhs for both the assessment years 1972-73 and 1973-74 and also directed the Income-tax Officer to recompute the income of the assessment years 1973-74 and 1974-75, after deleting the addition of Rs. 48, 000 made in both the assessment years. Thus, the appeals were allowedBefore us learned standing counsel appearing for the Department submitted that the Tribunal was not correct in directing to exclude the income of Rs. 48, 000 in the income-tax assessments of the assessee and so also the Tribunal was not correct in directing the exclusion of rupees four lakhs from the wealth of the assessee while computing the wealth-tax assessment for the assessment years under consideration. It was submitted that the assessee was not having liquid cash as on September 30, 1969, when the declaration was said to have been made by the assessee-individual impressing his individual property, viz., a sum of rupees four lakhs with the character of joint family property. Immediately the book entries were not made transferring the sum of rupees four lakhs from his individual business to that of the joint family business or in the name of the joint family. In fact the entries were made in the account books only on March 30, 1970 The assessee was having several individual properties of his own. It was not specified which of the properties he blended with the joint family property. The stamp papers were purchased on August 7, 1967 and February 9, 1968, for the purpose of expressing his declaration that he is impressing his individual property with the character of the joint family property. In fact, on the stamp papers purchased earlier, the declaration was made on September 30, 1969. Even in the declaration, it is stated that a sum of rupees four lakhs, which was impressed with the character of the joint family property, should also find an entry in the account books later. In fact, on the stamp papers purchased earlier, the declaration was made on September 30, 1969. Even in the declaration, it is stated that a sum of rupees four lakhs, which was impressed with the character of the joint family property, should also find an entry in the account books later. This would go to show that when the individual property was impressed with the character of the joint family property, the entries in the account books were not made immediately. Therefore, it cannot be said that the individual property was impressed with the character of the joint family property as on the date of declaration, viz., September 30, 1969, inasmuch as the entries in the account books were made only on March 30, 1970. In order to support his contention, learned standing counsel for the Department relied upon the decision of this court reported in R. Subramania Iyer v. CIT 1955 (28) ITR 352 wherein it was held that where there is a declaration by the father that a certain property is joint family property, the inference that the character of joint family property is impressed upon the separate property follows, unless the words are incapable of that construction or they represent merely a future intention not yet given effect to. According to learned standing counsel, in the present case, what happened was only the expression of the future intention of the assessee in the matter of impressing the individual property with the character of the joint family property. Therefore, as on September 30, 1969, the individual property was not impressed with the character of the joint family property. If the declaration was considered to be made on March 30, 1970, then such a transaction would be hit by the provisions of section 64(2) of the Income-tax Act and section 4(1A) of the Wealth-tax Act. According to those provisions the individual property said to have been impressed with the character of the joint family property after December 31, 1969, would be deemed to be the property of the individual. Accordingly, learned standing counsel submitted that the Tribunal was not correct in directing exclusion of the sum of Rs. According to those provisions the individual property said to have been impressed with the character of the joint family property after December 31, 1969, would be deemed to be the property of the individual. Accordingly, learned standing counsel submitted that the Tribunal was not correct in directing exclusion of the sum of Rs. 48, 000 from the income-tax assessment and exclusion of a sum of rupees four lakhs from the wealth-tax assessmentOn the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the assessee, while supporting the order passed by the Tribunal, submitted that the assessee was having capital to the extent of rupees eight lakhs and odd in his individual business. The assessee made a declaration that he is impressing with the character of joint family property with regard to his individual property to the extent of rupees four lakhs. The declaration was made on September 30, 1969. The Department did not suspect the genuineness of the declaration. Witnesses were also examined in order to prove the declaration. The declaration was endorsed on the stamp papers though purchased earlier. For the purpose of impressing the individual property with the character of joint family property a mere declaration is sufficient. It is not necessary to examine further as to what had happened to the individual property, which was impressed with the character of the joint family property. The individual property was impressed with the character of the joint family property in favour of the Hindu undivided family, since the Hindu undivided family owed a debt of rupees three lakhs and odd to the assessee. The declaration was made on September 30, 1969, and entries in the account books were made on December 30, 1970. When once the declaration was made impressing the individual property with the character of the joint family property further entries in the account books are not necessary. It was made only for the convenience of the assessee, and the joint family in which the assessee is a member. In the declaration, no doubt it is stated that a sum of rupees four lakhs was impressed with the character of joint family property and the entries to that effect would be made in the account books. It was made only for the convenience of the assessee, and the joint family in which the assessee is a member. In the declaration, no doubt it is stated that a sum of rupees four lakhs was impressed with the character of joint family property and the entries to that effect would be made in the account books. On that score, it cannot be said that the declaration and the entries in the account books should be made simultaneously so as to consider that the individual property has been impressed with the character of joint family property. Therefore, according to learned counsel for the assessee, a mere declaration by a member of the joint family stating that he is impressing his individual property with the joint family property by putting the same in the common hotchpot of the joint family, would be sufficient for completing the transaction in the matter of impressing the individual property with the character of the joint family. Further entries made in the account books is only an evidence to show that such an impressing was made earlier. Therefore, according to learned counsel appearing for the assessee, the Tribunal was correct in excluding the sum of Rs. 48, 000 from the income-tax assessment of the assessee and so also excluding a sum of rupees four lakhs while ascertaining the net wealth of the assessee in the wealth-tax assessmentsWe have heard both learned standing counsel appearing for the Department as well as learned counsel appearing for the assessee. The fact remains that the assessee is an individual and is doing a proprietary business. In his business, he is having a capital to the extent of Rs. 8, 56, 696.57 as on September 30, 1969. The assessee purchased stamp papers on August 7, 1967, and February 9, 1968, and made the following declaration "I, C. B. Muthusamy Chettiar hereby solemnly declare that from out of my self-acquired property, a sum of rupees four lakhs shall be made over to the Hindu undivided family of the said C. B. Muthusamy Chettiar and his only minor son, Ramraj, and be considered as the property of the said family as from date. Necessary entries shall be made in the individual and Hindu family business books, which shall also wipe out the indebtedness of the family to the individual to a similar amount." A plain reading of the declaration made by the assessee would go to show that he was having a capital in his individual business to the extent of rupees eight lakhs and odd. It is stated that he is also having other individual self-acquired properties. From out of his self-acquired property, a sum of rupees four lakhs was stated to be impressed with the character of the joint family. By this declaration which he made, his intention was clear to show that with regard to a sum of rupees four lakhs belonging to him, he wanted to impress this amount with the character of joint family property. The existence of the amount and the declaration were considered to be genuine. The Department did not doubt these facts. After the declaration was said to have been made on the date when it was made, viz., on September 30, 1969, it was further stated in the declaration that necessary entries shall be made in the account books belonging to the individual business as well as in the joint family business. Therefore, entries to be made in the account books is a subsequent event, which has got no connection with the declaration of the intention of the assessee in impressing the character of the joint family to that of his individual property. It was also stated that the assessee examined some witnesses to prove his declaration. This is a question of fact. The Tribunal, on an appraisal of facts, came to the conclusion that the declaration was made on September 30, 1969, and the entries to be made in the account books is only a subsequent event, which is unconnected with the declaration made expressing his intention to impress the character of the individual property with that of the joint family propertyUnder the law, a mere declaration by a member of the joint family with regard to his individual property that it belongs to the joint family property is itself sufficient to impress the individual property with the character of the joint family property. That was done in the present case. That was done in the present case. We need not further probe into the matter as to what had happened to the individual property after the same was impressed with the character of the joint family property, and whether it would go to reduce the liability of the joint family in paying the debt due by the joint family to the individual, etc. In the decision reported in R. Subramania Iyer v. CIT 1955 (28) ITR 352 (Mad), it was pointed out that a future intention, which was not yet given effect to for impressing the individual property with that of the joint family property cannot constitute a declaration at present for impressing an individual property with the character of the joint family property. That is not the case here. In the declaration made by the assessee in the present case, he clearly expressed his intention on September 30, 1969, that he is impressing his individual property of rupees four lakhs with the character of joint family property as on that date. Therefore, the decision reported in R. Subramania Iyer v. CIT 1955 (28) ITR 352 (Mad), will not be applicable to the facts of this case. Inasmuch as on an appraisal of the facts, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the assessee impressed his individual property with that of the character of the joint family property as on September 30, 1969, by a declaration made by him we do not want to come to a different conclusion, on a reappraisal of the same facts. Accordingly, we hold that there is no infirmity in the order passed by the Tribunal in directing the assessing authority to exclude a sum of Rs. 48, 000 from the income-tax assessment and so also directing the assessing authority to exclude a sum of rupees four lakhs while ascertaining the net wealth of the assessee. In that view of the matter, we answer the questions referred to us in the affirmative and against the Department. No costs.