9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Determination of deceased's share in agricultural holding after death. 2. Accrual of right to receive bonus shares to the deceased before death. Analysis: The High Court judgment addressed two main issues raised by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. Firstly, the Tribunal found that after the death of Chunni Lal, a family settlement resulted in the deceased having only a one-fourth share in the agricultural holding. The Tribunal relied on intrinsic evidence and revenue records to support this finding. The court emphasized that although the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act governs agricultural holdings, it does not prevent family members from entering into a family settlement. Referring to the case of Kale v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, the court established that family settlements can be valid even if parties have some antecedent title or interest in the property. In this case, the deceased's mother and sons did not have a title but had a semblance of interest, making the family settlement valid. Therefore, the court upheld the Tribunal's finding that the deceased had a one-fourth share in the agricultural holding at the time of his death. Secondly, the Tribunal considered the right to receive 1,680 bonus shares in J. K. Synthetics Ltd. The resolution to allot these shares to the deceased was passed in June 1973, but the actual allotment occurred after the deceased's death in February 1974. The court ruled that until the shares were issued, they did not accrue to the deceased as a debt owed by the company. Since the shares were allotted posthumously, their value could not be included in the deceased's principal assets. Consequently, the court answered both questions against the Department and in favor of the assessee, allowing the assessee to recover costs amounting to Rs. 200. In conclusion, the High Court judgment clarified the deceased's share in the agricultural holding based on a family settlement and determined that the right to receive bonus shares did not accrue to the deceased before his death, leading to a favorable outcome for the assessee in both issues.
|
