9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (3) TMI 132X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1893 of 1993, 10950 of 1992 and 9468 of 1992 (K. N. Indira Devi v. Deputy Commr. a Agrl. I.T. and Sales Tax [1998] 231 ITR 693 (Ker) [FB]), where similar issues are raised. The above-mentioned three original petitions have been disposed of by us under a separate judgment. The common questions raised in these tax revision cases are as follows : "1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in finding that the respondent and his four family members constituted a joint Hindu family even after the partition in 1978 and also by virtue of section 4(2) of the Kerala Joint Hindu Family System (Abolition) Act, 1975 ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was rig ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the assessee, his wife and daughters as tenants-in-common, was not accepted by the assessing authority. On appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, Kozhikode, the above view taken by the assessing authority was affirmed. But, on second appeal, the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (Additional Bench), Kozhikode, took the view that the income from the above mentioned property has to be assessed in the hands of the assessee, his wife and daughters as tenants-in-common. It is the above finding that is under attack in these tax revision cases at the instance of the Revenue. Admittedly, the parties are governed by the Mitakshara school of Hindu law. The property income from which is sought to be assessed was allotte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... overned by the Mitakshara law would not come within the purview of sub-section (1) or sub-section (2). He also pointed out that section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act has no application whatsoever in the facts of this case. Sub-section (2) applies only in the case of those who come under categories 1, 2 and 3 of the definition clause contained under section 2 of the Act. At the outset, we may point out that learned counsel appearing on behalf of the assessee did not contend that sub-section (1) of section 4 would be applicable in this case. According to him, it is sub-section (2) that would be applicable, since the wife and daughters of the assessee cannot be treated as co-parceners holding coparcenary property. We have examined the reaso ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... are" is of no consequence. Reading the entire sub-section (1) of section 4 it is clear that reference to "her share" is only an erroneous expression. The decisions of the Supreme Court relied on by the Tribunal are also irrelevant for interpretation of sub-section (1) of section 4 of the Act. Therefore, we have no hesitation to hold that sub-section (1) of section 4 has no application to the case of the assessee. As mentioned earlier, learned counsel for the assessee was placing reliance on sub-section (2) of section 4. In our separate judgment in O. P. Nos. 9468 of 1992, 10950 of 1992 and 1893 of 1993 (K N. Indira Devi v. Deputy Commr. of Agrl. I. T. and Sales Tax [1998] 231 ITR 693) where similar contentions were raised we have taken th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
