9911796707
TMI Blog1968 (11) TMI 35X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , 1955, leaving behind him his four sons, with whom during his lifetime he constituted a Hindu undivided family of which he was the karta. The eldest son, Narayanacharyulu, who is the applicant, is the accountable person. It is the case of the applicant that the properties of which the deceased died possessed belonged to the Hindu undivided family and that he had only a 1/5th interest therein, on which alone the estate duty is leviable. The Assistant Controller of Estate Duty found that the deceased was the adopted son of one Sri M. Venkata Narasimhacharyulu who died in 1896, leaving a will dated February 21, 1896, that all the properties specified in the will, with the exception of four items were described by the testator as his self-acquisitions, that the properties so described were inherited by the deceased under the will of his father in his individual capacity and that there was no evidence to show that the deceased had, during his lifetime, relinquished his separate rights over those properties in favour of the family. Accordingly, the Assistant Controller determined the principal value of the estate of the deceased at Rs. 3,13,895 comprising,--- (a) individual property o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... divided family ever since 1938-39, but the assessments were in fact made on him in the status of " individual " up to 1947-48, even though he had sons for several years prior to that date and notwithstanding the declaration of status as " manager of a Hindu undivided family " from 1938-39 onwards. The Board did not, therefore, consider that the declarations made by the deceased could be taken as conclusive evidence as to his status. As regards the investments made by the deceased, the Board examined the various transactions but did not find any convincing evidence to support the applicant's case that the properties belonged to that joint family. In this view, it rejected the applicant's contention and confirmed the finding of the Assistant Controller, that the properties derived by the deceased under the will of his father belonged to him absolutely. We are not here concerned with the valuation of the properties which was also in dispute upto the stage of the appeal before the Central Board of Direct Taxes, New Delhi. All that we are concerned with is whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the properties which the deceased got under the will of his adoptive father we ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... elf. While it is clear that the testator could not have dealt with the property which he received in partition by a will in so far as his half interest is concerned, at any rate he did evince an intention to dispose of the property to which he was entitled. In other words, the will would operate in respect of the property which the deceased (testator) could dispose of, and that property he disposed of in a particular manner. It cannot, therefore, be said that all that the will intended to do was to appoint the executors and that there was no dispositive clause making a bequest of the property which could be construed as evincing an intention that the property acquired by him as also the property in which he has a half interest should descend on the deceased adopted son as on a testate succession, conferring an absolute interest on him in the self-acquired properties of his father. We may here state that no contention was ever raised before the estate duty authorities that the property which the testator is said to have acquired after he became divided from his brothers was acquired from the joint family nucleus so as to impress that property also with joint family character. Ther ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... divided family prior to 1947-48 and had in fact been shown as individual up to that date, it did not go further and state as it should have done, that after 1947-48 the deceased was assessed in respect of the income of all the properties which he claimed to be his self-acquired properties as a member of the Hindu undivided family. It is apparent from the appellate order of the Board that the accountable person had claimed that the income accruing up to the date of the death and the assets arising therefrom should be excluded, as such income was assessed in the hands of the Hindu undivided family in the income-tax assessments, in respect of which the Board said : " Although the income had been declared as that of the Hindu undivided family, to my mind the income cannot be divorced from the assets themselves." The Assistant Controller also while nothing that, in the income-tax returns right from 1947, the deceased declared his status as Hindu undivided family and that this declaration in the income-tax returns is tantamount to a declaration that the individual properties were thrown in the family hotchpot, gives a curious reason for ignoring this fact. He says : " ... the decla ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in their returns, and that, therefore, the property should be treated as joint family property, held that the uninterrupted course of conduct of the deceased declaring his property as joint family property in the income-tax returns and the acceptance of such returns by the department coupled with the continued treatment of the same as joint family property even after the execution of the will, there was a presumption that it was not only joint family property acquired with ancestral nucleus, but also that it was treated as joint family property. To the same effect was the view of the Punjab High Court in Kanwar Sardari Lal Chopra v. Controller of Estate Duty. We must, therefore, conclude that there is prima facie evidence in this case of the treatment by the deceased of his self-acquired properties as joint family properties. Even apart from that, there is also other evidence which will substantiate this conclusion, namely, that the deceased had, in the deed of sale of the house at Lalpet on February 18, 1925, stated that the three sons were joint owners with their father. In Mangalagiri Chowki, which was the subject-matter of the sale deed dated February 2, 1942, the lands were ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
