Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1992 (7) TMI 123

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... s share for aggregation of Rs. 3,08,905. The Commissioner of Wealth-tax(Appeals) AP-III while acting under section 25(2) of the Wealth-tax Act vide order dated 30-10-1984 set aside the wealth-tax assessment for the assessment year 1980-81 of the deceased on the ground that the alleged partial partition on 4-5-1974 and the order of the Assessing Officer dated 30-3-1976 under section 171 was erroneous because under the Hindu Law, the deceased was not competent to take in adoption his uterine brother Sri Venkobacharya. Since the adoption was illegal under the Hindu Law, the alleged partial partition and the consequent order passed on 30-3-1976 under section 171(3) was null and void. Drawing inspiration from this order dated 30-10-1984, under s .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 30-3-1976 was a valid operative order not having been upset or reversed by competent authorities in accordance with law recognising partial partition made on 4-5-1974 between the deceased and his adopted son Shri A. Venkobacharya. The appellate authority was also informed about the order dated 21-5-1991 of this Tribunal passed in WTA Number cited supra, but the appellate authority distinguished the same and did not follow it. The first appellate authority held that under the Hindu law, the uterine brother cannot be taken in adoption and therefore the adoption by the deceased Shri Venkobacharya was illegal and therefore null and void. The order recognising the partial partition under section 171(3) passed on 30-3-1976 was therefore invalid a .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... g partial partition is valid and binding even for the proceedings under the Wealth-tax Act until the same has been upset or reversed by competent authority in accordance with law. This order of the Tribunal, Shri Manmohan submits should be equally applied in the present appeal as the facts are identical and the Estate Duty assessment of the deceased has been reopened on the strength of the order dated 30-10-1984 of the Commissioner of Wealth-tax passed under section 25(2) of the Wealth-tax Act. Regarding validity of adoption, Shri Manmohan submits that under the old customary common Hindu Law there was no bar or prohibition for any Hindu to adopt his own uterine brother. The lower authorities have not proved that the adoption in the year 19 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ome in proceedings arising under a separate enactment. The learned DR therefore submitted that the first appellate authority was correct in ignoring the order passed by the Income-tax Officer under section 171(3) of the Income-tax Act in proceedings under the Estate Duty Act which are independent and unconnected with any proceedings under the Income-tax Act or Wealth-tax Act. To prove the case of the department that the adoption by the deceased of his uterine brother Shri Venkobacharya as a son was illegal as per common customary Hindu Law, he has taken us to Paras 4 to 7 at pages 2 to 7 on the commentary on Hindu Law by S. V. Gupta, 1970 Edition. The learned DR therefore pleaded that the order of the first appellate authority being in acco .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... under section 171(3) by the Income-tax Officer on the partial partition effected on 4-5-1974 between the deceased and his adopted son Shri Venkobacharya was later upset, vacated, cancelled or reversed in any manner whatsoever as per law by any competent authority in this regard. That being the position, the order passed under section 171(3) is effective and operative and the same cannot be ignored by us in deciding the controversy now before us. In our view, when an order recognising total or partial partition or disruption of a Hindu family has been passed under section 171(3), it is not open to any other authority, acting under any law to ignore the said order which is passed by a quasi-judicial authority in quasi-judicial proceedings af .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates