1985 (1) TMI 79 - AT - Wealth-tax

Summary

Issues:
- Inclusion of the value of shares in the assessment of the assessee HUF.
- Interpretation of s. 20 of the Wealth Tax Act in the context of partial partition.
- Applicability of s. 25A and s. 171 of the Income Tax Act in cases of partition.
- Comparison of relevant case laws and their implications on the present case.

Analysis:

1. The appeals revolve around the inclusion of the value of 57,000 shares in Saraya Sugar Mills Ltd. in the assessment of the assessee HUF. The contention was that these shares were distributed among family members as per a court decree, but the WTO did not accept this claim and included their value in the assessments without discussing the issue.

2. The CWT (A) confirmed the inclusion of the shares, stating that without an order under s. 20 of the Wealth Tax Act for partition of the HUF, the claim of partition could not be accepted. The shares were deemed to belong to the assessee.

3. The assessee appealed, arguing that s. 20 only applied to complete partitions, not partial ones like in this case. Referring to the Dwarka Nath case, the counsel contended that partial partitions do not require severance of jointness as in s. 20.

4. The departmental representative disagreed, citing case laws like Kapurchand Shrimal and Kalloomal Tapeswari Prasad, which dealt with partition under the Income Tax Act.

5. The Tribunal considered the submissions and relied on the Dwarka Nath case, which held that s. 20 of the Wealth Tax Act does not apply to partial partitions where there is no severance of jointness. Partial partitions are not governed by s. 20.

6. Further, the Tribunal discussed the evolution of partition laws, noting that s. 25A of the Income Tax Act of 1922 and s. 171 of the 1961 Act dealt with partitions, with the latter applying to total and partial partitions.

7. The Tribunal emphasized that s. 20 of the Wealth Tax Act, borrowed from s. 25A, does not cover partial partitions. The introduction of s. 20A for partial partitions post-1978 does not apply to pre-existing cases like the present one.

8. The Tribunal clarified that when a section like s. 20 does not apply to a case, there is no need to enforce it. The decision in Kapurchand Shrimal was deemed irrelevant, while the Kalloomal Tapeswari Prasad case highlighted the distinction between s. 25A and s. 171.

9. Ultimately, the Tribunal held that s. 20 did not apply to the partial partition in this case, as the shares no longer belonged to the assessee. The value of the shares should be excluded from the assessments for the relevant years, and both appeals were allowed.