9911796707
TMI Blog1985 (9) TMI 22X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... self, his son and wife and not the individual property of the assessee ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in directing the Wealth-tax Officer to take the status of the assessee as Hindu undivided family ?" The material facts are these : For the assessment years 1972-73 to 1975-76, the assessee/respondent submitted his returns, claiming his status as Hindu undivided family. The property in question originally belonged to the father of the assessee/respondent, Shri Mohanlal Agrawal, who expired on September 30, 1971. According to the assessee/respondent, he was married on May 8, 1970, and a son was born to him on September 26, 1971. Further, the assessee claimed th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of such property is as representing his Hindu undivided family. Under the circumstances of the case, therefore, the Tribunal held that the proper status of the assessee was that of a Hindu undivided family and not an individual. In our opinion, the view taken by the Tribunal, relying on CIT v. Dr. Babubhai Mansukhbhai [1977] 108 ITR 417 (Guj) where almost similar facts were involved, is correct on the facts and in the circumstances of the present case. The main question for decision is whether the assessee should be treated as an individual or as the karta of a Hindu undivided family for the purposes of assessment. The other question is whether the Wealth-tax Officer was correct in holding that the concept of Hindu undivided family has be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ber and that such a family may consist of a male member and his wife and daughters. Hence, although the assessee had no son and the wife had no interest in the properties of the family, yet, for the purposes of status, the assessee with his wife constituted a Hindu undivided family (emphasis supplied) and in CED v. Smt. Rani Bahu [1983] 142 ITR 843 (MP) [FB], the same principle was reiterated and the plea that there must be at least two male members to form a Hindu undivided family as a taxable entity was rejected. In a recent decision of the Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra v. Narayan Rao Sham Rao Deshmukh, AIR 1985 SC 716, it has been laid down that a joint family may consist of a female member. It may consist of male member, his wif ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
