1993 (4) TMI 45 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Determination of the share of Hindu undivided family property passing on the death of the deceased.
2. Consideration of notional partition under section 39(1) of the Estate Duty Act for the deceased sole surviving coparcener.
3. Assessment of whether the entire Hindu undivided family property passed on the date of death of the deceased.

Analysis:

Issue 1:
The case involved the claim by the accountable person, the wife of the deceased sole surviving coparcener, regarding the share of the property passing on his death. The Tribunal upheld the claim that only half of the share in the property passed, contrary to the decisions of the Assistant Controller and the Appellate Controller.

Issue 2:
The discussion revolved around section 39(1) of the Estate Duty Act, which deals with the valuation of interest in coparcenary property ceasing on death. The claim was based on the notional partition immediately before the death of the deceased, invoking section 39(1) to determine the share that would have been allotted to him in the ancestral properties.

Issue 3:
The judgment delved into the legal principles governing ancestral properties and partitions in Hindu law. It emphasized that in cases where the family consists of the sole surviving coparcener and his wife, no partition is permissible between them for ancestral properties. The court cited precedents to establish that on the death of the sole surviving coparcener, the entire interest in the Hindu undivided family property passes to his heir.

The court referred to legal texts and previous judgments to establish that ancestral properties can only be partitioned between two surviving coparceners, highlighting that the wife of the deceased sole surviving coparcener cannot claim a share in such properties. The judgment answered the questions raised in the negative and affirmative, favoring the Department's stance on the passing of the entire interest in the Hindu undivided family property to the deceased's heir. The judgment concluded without any order as to costs and directed the transmission of the judgment to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal for further action.