9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether severance in status took place between late Sri K. Subramanyeswara Rao and his three sons. 2. Whether there was a disruption of the joint family on 31-3-1963. 3. Whether the lineal descendants' share was liable to be included for rate purposes under section 34(1)(c) of the E.D. Act. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Severance in Status: The accountable person contended that severance in status occurred on 31-3-1963, resulting in the division of the joint family and its properties. The revenue argued that the account entry dated 31-3-1963 did not indicate a complete division in status. The Tribunal examined the Telugu narration in the account entry, which stated: "From now onwards we the four members of our joint family...became divided as regards this business and do not wish to carry on business as joint family members." The Tribunal held that this narration only indicated a partial partition concerning the business assets and did not unequivocally express an intention to sever the joint family status entirely. The Tribunal referenced Mulla's Hindu Law, emphasizing that a definite and unequivocal indication of intention to separate is necessary for severance in status, which was not evident in this case. 2. Disruption of Joint Family: The Tribunal assessed whether the joint family was disrupted on 31-3-1963. The accountable person argued that the joint family ceased to exist from that date, and members enjoyed their respective shares as tenants in common. However, the Tribunal found that the narration dated 31-3-1963 did not show an intention to disrupt the entire joint family or to live separately. The Tribunal noted that the intention to live apart or to divide all joint family properties was not recorded. The Tribunal also considered that the joint family continued to maintain its own books of accounts, and there was no agreement among family members about severance in status recorded in their family accounts. The Tribunal concluded that the narration dated 31-3-1963 evidenced only a partial partition of business assets and did not bring about a complete disruption of the joint family. 3. Inclusion of Lineal Descendants' Share under Section 34(1)(c) of the E.D. Act: The accountable person contended that the lineal descendants' share should not be included for rate purposes under section 34(1)(c) of the E.D. Act, as the joint family was disrupted on 31-3-1963. The Tribunal disagreed, holding that the integrity of the family was maintained even after 31-3-1963. The Tribunal noted that the joint family continued to exist, and there was no evidence of complete severance in status. The Tribunal referenced earlier decisions of the Tribunal, which were based on different facts and documents, and found that those decisions were not applicable to the present case. The Tribunal concluded that the lineal descendants' share was liable to be added under section 34(1)(c) of the E.D. Act for aggregation. Conclusion: The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, holding that there was no severance in status or disruption of the joint family on 31-3-1963. Consequently, the lineal descendants' share was liable to be included for rate purposes under section 34(1)(c) of the E.D. Act.
|
