9911796707
TMI Blog1984 (6) TMI 11X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . ft. and whether such beneficial title passed on his death under section 5 of the E.D. Act ? A building site measuring 4 grounds and 610 sq. ft. in Plot No. 4, Avadi Road, Kilpauk, Madras, was purchased under a registered sale deed dated May 25, 1963, in the name of Smt. Hemibai Mangharam, wife of Menghraj Thakurdas. The said Menghraj Thakurdas died on November 17, 1969. On the ground that the said deceased had provided funds for the purchase of the property in the name of his wife, Hemibai Mangharam, the deceased was taken to be a beneficial owner of the said property in the estate duty assessment. The Assistant Controller added the market value of the said vacant site to the principal value of the estate as furnished by the accountable ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the intention, the person who provided fund should be taken to be the owner of the property. Aggrieved by the decision of the Tribunal, the accountable person has come to this court by way of this reference. There is no dispute on the facts. The building site measuring four grounds and 610 sq. ft. being Plot No. 4, Avadi Road, Kilpauk, Madras, had been purchased in the name of deceased's wife on May 25, 1963. The funds for the purchase of the said site had been provided by the deceased, the husband of the transferee. The controversy between the parties in this case on these admitted facts is as to whether the deceased provided funds with an intention to benefit the wife or whether he intended to treat the property as his as he had provide ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... had been filed for the assessment years 1968-69 and 1969-70. If really the deceased had not intended to benefit his wife by way of purchase of the house site in question, he would have shown the same as his own in the wealth-tax return. This in a way indicates that the deceased did not intend to have any beneficial interest in the property in question. On the other hand, the wife, after purchase of this property, has been submitting a return under the Wealth-tax Act, showing the property as hers. This conduct on the part of the wife will also indicate that the husband intended to benefit her by providing funds for the purchase of the property. The conduct of both the deceased and his wife after the purchase of the property in question is q ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... turns, the accountable person cannot have the property excluded from the estate of the deceased. We are not in a position to agree with the view taken by the Tribunal. The filing of the return by the deceased himself while he was alive clearly shows his conduct in treating the property as not his. We are not in a position to say that the conduct of the deceased after the purchase of the property in treating the property not as his own is either immaterial or irrelevant. Therefore, we are not in a position to eschew the wealth-tax returns filed by the deceased for the assessment years 1968-69 and 1969-70 on the ground that they are not relevant or insufficient to prove the claim of the accountable person that the property in question did not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
