9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Determination of correct status of the assessee as a Hindu undivided family or otherwise for the assessment year 1976-77 under the Wealth-tax Act, 1957. Analysis: The assessee filed returns of wealth showing the status as a Hindu undivided family, which was accepted by the Wealth-tax Officer. However, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) directed a re-examination as no reasons were provided for the specified status. The assessee contended that since only the wife of the karta had taxable wealth and she couldn't claim partition, the status should be non-specified Hindu undivided family. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal noted the similarity between joint Hindu family and undivided family, concluding that the wife being a member makes it a specified Hindu undivided family. Upon consideration, it was established that the wife, not being a coparcener under Hindu law, holds an interest in the husband's property and is entitled to a share equal to a son in case of partition. A coparcenary is narrower than a joint family, requiring a common male ancestor with lineal descendants in the male line. Legal precedents like Kalyanji Vithaldas v. CIT and Gowli Buddanna v. CIT were cited to support the distinction between coparcenary and Hindu undivided family, emphasizing that even a single male coparcener can constitute a Hindu undivided family. The Wealth-tax Act's Schedule I specifies tax rates for individuals or Hindu undivided families, mentioning the term "member" without requiring coparcenary status. The apex court's decisions and Hindu law provisions establish that a wife is a family member, not necessarily a coparcener. As the wife's wealth was taxable and she was a family member, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal's decision to consider the assessee as a specified Hindu undivided family was deemed justified. Consequently, the reference was decided in favor of the Revenue against the assessee.
|
