1990 (2) TMI 31 - HC - Wealth-tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the property inherited by Prithvi Raj Ji was in his "individual" capacity or by his Hindu undivided family.
2. Whether the Tribunal's finding that the property remained in the bigger Hindu undivided family after Man Singh's death was correct.
3. Whether Prithvi Raj Ji inherited the property as an individual or as a member of a Hindu undivided family.

Analysis:

The case involved a dispute regarding the inheritance of property by Prithvi Raj Ji, son of late Maharaja Man Singh, in his "individual" capacity or as a member of a Hindu undivided family. The Department contended that the property was inherited by Prithvi Raj Ji (HUF) based on the return filed by him. However, the Tribunal observed that the property was not assessable in the hands of Prithvi Raj Ji. The Tribunal further noted the existence of a bigger Hindu undivided family of Man Singh and presumed that the share remained within that family even after Man Singh's death. The petitioner argued that this conclusion was not in accordance with Hindu law, as the property should have devolved to Prithvi Raj Ji individually.

The respondent's counsel acknowledged that the Tribunal's observation regarding the share remaining in the bigger Hindu undivided family might not align with Hindu law. However, it was argued that until an order under section 20 of the Wealth-tax Act is passed, the larger Hindu undivided family, if existing, cannot be considered disrupted. The court clarified that the key issue was whether Prithvi Raj Ji inherited the property as an individual or as a member of a Hindu undivided family. Referring to Supreme Court decisions, the court established that property is inherited by the son in his "individual" capacity upon the father's death, not as a member of a Hindu undivided family. Therefore, regardless of how Man Singh held the property, Prithvi Raj Ji's share would not devolve on him as a member of a Hindu undivided family.

Consequently, the court deemed the questions raised by the petitioner as academic, given the precedents set by the Supreme Court. The petition was dismissed, and no costs were awarded. The Department was granted the liberty to pursue individual assessments or contentions in Prithvi Raj Ji's case, unaffected by the dismissal of the current application.