1987 (5) TMI 82 - AT - Income Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the additional ground regarding the maintenance claim for the wife of the deceased should have been entertained.
2. The nature and extent of the maintenance claim of the wife against the joint family property.
3. The distinction between the maintenance rights of a wife and a widow under Hindu law.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Whether the additional ground regarding the maintenance claim for the wife of the deceased should have been entertained:
The accountable person, the adopted son of the deceased, raised an additional ground during the appeal before the Appellate Controller, arguing that the share of the deceased in the HUF properties should be computed after allowing a reasonable amount towards the maintenance of the deceased's wife. This ground was dismissed as it was raised for the first time at the appellate stage without prior evidence or claim before the Assistant Controller. The Tribunal, however, considered whether such a question of law could be raised at any time, referencing the Andhra Pradesh High Court's decision in CIT v. Gangappa Cables Ltd. and Shaik Ibrahim v. CIT, which allowed new legal questions to be raised at the Tribunal stage if they dealt with pure questions of law.

2. The nature and extent of the maintenance claim of the wife against the joint family property:
The Tribunal examined the legal framework regarding the maintenance rights of a wife under Hindu law. It was argued that the wife has a right to maintenance from the coparcenery property, as per para 304 of Mulla's Hindu Law. This provision states that maintenance must be provided for dependent female members before partitioning the joint family property. However, the Tribunal noted that the maintenance right is a personal obligation of the husband, independent of property possession, as discussed in Mayne's Hindu Law and Mulla's Hindu Law. The Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act codified this obligation, stating that a Hindu wife is entitled to maintenance by her husband during her lifetime (Section 18(1)) and that heirs are bound to maintain dependents out of the inherited estate (Section 22(1)).

3. The distinction between the maintenance rights of a wife and a widow under Hindu law:
The Tribunal highlighted the difference between the maintenance rights of a wife and a widow. While a wife has a personal right to maintenance from her husband, a widow's right to maintenance arises from the estate of the deceased husband. The Tribunal cited CED v. Smt. P. Leelavathamma, which clarified that a wife is not a 'dependant' under Section 21 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act while her husband is alive. The widow's right to maintenance is contingent upon not receiving a share of the deceased's estate. The Tribunal concluded that the wife did not have a claim for maintenance against the joint family property while her husband was alive, and no such claim was made or charged against the property during his lifetime.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal rejected the contention that the wife had a maintenance claim against the coparcenery property, emphasizing that such a claim is a personal obligation of the husband and does not extend to the joint family property. The appeal was dismissed, affirming that the wife's maintenance rights do not apply to the coparcenery property in the context presented.