9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Nature of the right of ownership of property belonging to Shri Kundan Lal after the separation of Shri Vijay Kumar on February 14, 1966. 2. Whether a change was brought about in the nature of this right of ownership of property on or about March 10, 1967, or during any of the previous years relevant to the assessment year under appeal. 3. Whether a family arrangement effective under taxation laws could exist with regard to the properties held by Shri Kundan Lal. 4. Whether there could be a partition in law between a husband and his wife with regard to any property in general and specifically with regard to the property owned by the husband as a sole surviving or single coparcener. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Nature of Ownership Post-Separation of Shri Vijay Kumar The Tribunal concluded that the properties owned by Shri Kundan Lal after the separation of Shri Vijay Kumar on February 14, 1966, were in the nature of separate property. However, the High Court disagreed, stating that merely because all the sons left the coparcenary, it would not change the nature of the property owned by the HUF. The property continued to belong to the HUF despite the family being represented by Shri Kundan Lal, his wife, and an unmarried daughter. Therefore, the Tribunal misdirected itself in recording this finding. Issue 2: Change in Nature of Property Ownership The Tribunal found that there was no change brought about in the nature of the property at any time up to February 14, 1966. The High Court agreed with this finding, noting that the nature of the property remained unchanged even after the alleged partial partition on March 10, 1967. Issue 3: Family Arrangement and Taxation Laws The Tribunal concluded that there could be no family arrangement effective under taxation laws with regard to the properties held by Shri Kundan Lal, as the family and the properties had not reverted to the status of a multiple-member coparcenary. The High Court upheld this conclusion, stating that under Hindu law, a family arrangement is nothing other than a partition or re-partition by agreement. Issue 4: Partition Between Husband and Wife The Tribunal held that Smt. Kailash Wati could not claim or obtain a partition from her husband with regard to any property in general and particularly not in regard to the property owned by the husband as a sole surviving or single coparcener. The High Court agreed, noting that a wife cannot claim partition of the HUF property as a matter of her own right. However, if a son claims a share in the property by way of partition, the wife is entitled to claim and get property equivalent to the share given to the son. The High Court also found that Smt. Kailash Wati did not lay claim to the partition of the property on the basis that she had not been given any share when her sons got their share in the property during the partition. Additional Findings: The High Court noted that the plea that Smt. Kailash Wati was entitled to a share in the property at the time when the partition was claimed by her sons was not raised before the ITO. The AAC and the Tribunal recorded findings of fact that no evidence supported the claim that Smt. Kailash Wati demanded a reopening of the partition or that there was any readjustment of partition. The High Court upheld these findings, stating that Smt. Kailash Wati did not have the right to claim partition of the HUF property of her own accord. Conclusion: The High Court answered the questions referred by the Tribunal in the affirmative, in favor of the revenue and against the assessee. The property continued to belong to the HUF, and no valid partial partition occurred between Shri Kundan Lal and Smt. Kailash Wati. Therefore, the Tribunal was justified in rejecting the claim of partial partition.
|
