1991 (9) TMI 119 - AT - Income Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Extent of the share of the deceased in the property that passed on his death.
2. Application of Hindu Succession Act, 1956, and Hindu Mitakshara coparcenary law.
3. Rights of the wife in the joint family property.
4. Interpretation and application of Section 6 of the Estate Duty Act.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Extent of the Share of the Deceased in the Property:
The primary issue in the appeal is determining the extent of the deceased's share in property No. D-25, N.D.S.E Part-II, New Delhi, which passed on his death. The deceased, Shri R. Satakopan, was part of a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) with his brother and nephew. The property in question was owned by the HUF. Shri Satakopan executed a will bequeathing his undivided share in the property to his nephew and all his movable properties to his wife.

2. Application of Hindu Succession Act, 1956, and Hindu Mitakshara Coparcenary Law:
Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, was pivotal in this case. It states that the interest of a Hindu Mitakshara coparcener shall be deemed to be the share in the property that would have been allotted to him if a partition had taken place immediately before his death. The proviso to Section 6 specifies that if the deceased had a surviving female relative, the interest of the deceased devolves by testamentary or intestate succession, not by survivorship.

3. Rights of the Wife in the Joint Family Property:
The accountable person, Smt. Pushpam Satakopan, contended that she was entitled to a share in the property under the Hindu Succession Act. However, the Tribunal held that the wife had no right to claim partition or a share in the joint family property. The Tribunal referenced several High Court judgments, including CED v. Smt. Kalawati Devi and Ramrattan v. CED, which established that a wife does not have a share in the property received on partition by her husband.

4. Interpretation and Application of Section 6 of the Estate Duty Act:
The Tribunal examined the application of Section 6 of the Estate Duty Act, which deals with the devolution of property upon the death of a coparcener. The Tribunal concluded that the entire share of the deceased, which was half of the property, passed on his death. The Tribunal rejected the contention that the wife had a right to a share in the property due to her maintenance rights, citing various judgments that established maintenance rights do not equate to a share in the property.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal affirmed the orders of the authorities below, holding that the entire half share of the deceased in the immovable property passed on his death within the meaning of Section 6 of the Estate Duty Act. The appeal was dismissed, and the Tribunal's earlier decision in the income-tax appeal of Murli Manohar was deemed incorrect. The Tribunal's analysis emphasized that the wife's right to maintenance did not translate into a right to a share in the property, and the deceased's testamentary disposition of his share was valid and enforceable.