9911796707
TMI Blog1982 (7) TMI 160X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... TO held that there was a chargeable gift under s. 4(c) of the GT Act and brought it to tax. 2. It was urged before the CIT(A) that the assessee is not a coparcener of the HUF of Murlidhar Gattani and therefore, she does not have a right to claim a partition. Her right is limited to a share, if a partition takes place. Since the partition had not taken place when the relinquishment deed was executed, she had no specific interest in the properties of the HUF, which she could have gifted or transferred. Reliance was placed on Gujarat High Court ruling in (1969) 74 ITR 211 (Guj) (CGT vs. Mrs. Taramati Hariprasad Vasa). The admitted position was that Surajmal formed an HUF with his son Murlidhar. Surajmal died in December, 1949, therefore, by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CIT (A) distinguished the Gujarat ruling in (1969) 74 ITR 211 (Guj), since in that case there was no widow but only the Karta s wife had surrendered her interest when her husband was alive. The CIT(A), therefore, upheld the assessment to Gift Tax. The assessee is aggrieved and is in appeal. 4. Although, there are five grounds of appeal, the ld. counsel for the assessee did not press any other ground except the one which has been discussed above in the order of the CIT(A), i.e., the relinquishment of the undivided share of the assessee in the property of the HUF did not amount to a gift and contended that the property left by Surajmal on his death came to the son Murlidhar by survivorship and to his widow, the assessee, by virtue of Hindu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e," but she had a right to claim partition, as a female owner. Thus, when that assessee s husband died in 1949, having an interest in HUF property, the interest devolved on the assessee. The widow s estate was abolished with the coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act and s. 14 of this Act provided that any property possessed by a female Hindu, whether acquired before or after the commencement of this Act, shall be held by her as full owner thereof and not as a limited owner. Therefore, if it can be held that the assessee was in possession of her half share in the HUF property when the Hindu Succession Act came into force on 17th June, 1956, she became the full owner of that half share in the property. 7. The argument, however, is t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) of the Hindur Succession Act she had become the full owner of the property on the coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act, because she was in possession thereof, the facts in that case and in the case before us are thus, entirely similar, except that in that case she sold the property and in this case she relinquished it. In fact, the assessee cannot claim that she had relinquished her interest in the property, though she was not full owner thereof. Such a position would be entirely contradictory. The two Gujarat High Court decisions, relied on behalf of the assessee, are clearly distinguishable. 8. We are clearly of the opinion that the ld. CIT(A) was correct in holding that the assessee had become full owner of half the property ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
