1983 (3) TMI 95 - AT - Wealth-tax

Summary

Issues:
Interpretation of section 5(1)(ii) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 in the context of ancestral property ownership under the Dayabhaga School of Hindu Law.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Claim for Deduction under Section 5(1)(ii):
The appeal revolved around the assessee, an individual, claiming a deduction under section 5(1)(ii) for his share in ancestral property inherited from his father. The Wealth Tax Officer (WTO) denied the claim, arguing that there was no Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) nucleus, and the assessee's share was identifiable.

2. Contentions Before the AAC:
Before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (AAC), the assessee argued that the ancestral properties remained jointly held since the death of his father and uncle, indicating the existence of an HUF with a clear nucleus. The AAC agreed with this argument, directing the WTO to grant the exemption under section 5(1)(ii).

3. Interpretation of Dayabhaga School of Hindu Law:
The revenue, in its appeal, contended that under the Dayabhaga School of Hindu Law, heirs of a deceased do not automatically form an HUF and cannot be assessed as such, citing the Supreme Court decision in the case of Bishwanath Chatterjee. The revenue sought to set aside the AAC's order and uphold the WTO's decision.

4. Decision of the Tribunal:
The Tribunal analyzed the Dayabhaga School of Hindu Law, noting that coparcenary does not exist between a father and sons in ancestral property under this law. The Tribunal referred to the Bishwanath Chatterjee case, emphasizing that properties held by heirs under Dayabhaga School are not assessable jointly as HUF. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the AAC's order and reinstated the WTO's decision, denying the exemption under section 5(1)(ii).

5. Final Outcome:
In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the departmental appeals, ruling in favor of the revenue and holding that the assessee's property inherited under the Dayabhaga School of Hindu Law does not qualify for exemption under section 5(1)(ii) as a part of an HUF.

This detailed analysis showcases the legal interpretation of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 in the context of ancestral property ownership and the applicability of the Dayabhaga School of Hindu Law, culminating in the Tribunal's decision to deny the claimed deduction under section 5(1)(ii).