1987 (5) TMI 79 - AT - Income Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Determination of the share entitlement of the deceased's wife in the smaller Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) properties.
2. Assessment of the estate duty liability concerning the movable properties of the deceased and the share allocation between the deceased and his wife.

Analysis:
1. The judgment involves the partition of movable properties within a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) where the deceased, his wife, and sons were members. The deceased and his sons received 1/4th share each, but the wife was excluded from the partition. The Appellate Controller held that the wife had a right to claim her share, constituting a liability of the deceased's estate. The wife was entitled to 1/5th share in the movable property, which needed to be excluded from the principal value of the estate. The judgment relied on the Northern School of Hindu Law to establish the wife's entitlement, emphasizing that her right accrued at the time of partition, even if not claimed at that time.

2. The judgment draws parallels with a previous case where a wife's entitlement to a share was recognized despite not claiming it immediately. It highlights that the wife's right to a share accrues at the time of partition, and her conduct of not claiming a share does not amount to relinquishment. The judgment emphasizes that specific pleas regarding relinquishment or lapse of limitation should have been raised during assessment proceedings. It clarifies that the wife's entitlement to a share is independent of her husband's coparcenary interest and should be considered separately. The judgment directs the Assistant Controller to assess estate duty only on the deceased's share of 4/5th in the movable property, excluding the 1/5th share belonging to the deceased's wife.

3. The judgment distinguishes another case where specific provisions in a partition agreement allocated shares between family members differently. It concludes that the deceased held 4/5th share in the movable property, while 1/5th belonged to the deceased's wife. Therefore, the estate duty should be charged only on the deceased's 4/5th share, excluding the wife's 1/5th share. The judgment dismisses one appeal and partly allows another based on these findings, emphasizing the wife's entitlement to a share in the estate despite not actively claiming it during the deceased's lifetime.