9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the property belonging to the HUF continues to remain HUF property after the death of the husband in the absence of any male members. 2. Whether the adoption of a son subsequent to the husband's death takes effect from the date of adoption or from the time of the husband's death, maintaining HUF status. 3. Whether it was proper to hold that on the husband's death, the property received by succession by the female members does not get divested by the subsequent adoption. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Continuation of HUF Property Post-Husband's Death The property in question, consisting of lands, was ancestral and belonged to the HUF. Upon the death of the husband, who left behind no male heirs but his wife and mother, the authorities concluded that according to section 4(6) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, read with section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the property devolved by succession to the female members individually, not by survivorship. Thus, the property ceased to be HUF property upon the husband's death. Issue 2: Effect of Adoption on HUF Status The assessee argued that the adoption of a son should retroactively affect the HUF status from the time of the husband's death. However, the authorities and the Tribunal referred to section 12 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, which states that adoption is effective from the date of adoption and does not divest any estate vested in the adoptee before adoption. Therefore, the adoption of the son did not retroactively maintain the HUF status from the husband's death. Issue 3: Succession and Divesting of Property Post-Adoption The Tribunal examined various case laws, including the Patna High Court's decision in Savitri Devi and the Supreme Court's ruling in N.V. Narendranath, which supported the existence of HUF even with a single male member. However, it was noted that these cases involved scenarios where a larger HUF existed or a male member was alive at the time of death. In contrast, the present case did not involve a larger HUF, and no male member was alive at the husband's death. The Tribunal concluded that the property vested in the female members by succession and could not be divested by the subsequent adoption. Conclusion: The Tribunal held that upon the husband's death, the property ceased to be HUF property and vested individually in the female members. The subsequent adoption did not retroactively maintain the HUF status or divest the property already vested in the female members. The appeals were dismissed, and the assessment was to be made treating the assessee as an individual, not as an HUF. The Tribunal's decision was supported by the Supreme Court's ruling in Pushpa Devi and the Andhra Pradesh High Court's decision in Smt. T. Yasodamma, which clarified that a female member could not blend her individual property with HUF property.
|
