9911796707
TMI Blog1979 (12) TMI 82X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , Pusa Road, New Delhi. The assessee claims the status of HUF in respect of this property. The authorities below held that the proper status of the assessee in respect of this property was that of individual. The facts are that the father of the assessee, viz., Shri Maharaj Kishore who died, after his retirement as District and Session Judge, had executed a deed of family arrangement on First May, 1967 in pursuance of the oral agreement dt. 16th Oct., 1963. Late Shri Maharaj Kishore and his wife late Smt. Shanti Kumari both were the parties to the family arrangement deed. Cl. (1) of the deed of family arrangement runs as follows: "That the plot under bungalow no. 11/6B, Pusa Road, New Delhi and the construction thereon stands in the name ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... In every circumstances either it was her own property or it would have been given to her by her husband, she was the exclusive owner of the property. She made a will and on the strength of will the assessee and his brother received it after the death of the mother and they are exclusively owner as per the will, as such the character of the property in the hands of the assessee will be individual and not HUF as claimed. In view of the legal position discussed above the status of the assessee is being determined, as that individual. 3. On appeal, the AAC accepted the status of individual as determined by the WTO. The argument of the assessee's counsel, Shri Sadh is that from the family arrangement deed it is manifest that Pusa Road Bungal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y case the two sons of late Shri Maharaj Kishore became entitled to Pusa Road Bungalow only by virtue of the Will, which was executed by Smt. Shanti Kumari, who was the absolute owner of Pusa road Bungalow. The argument, therefore, is that two sons of late Smt. Shanti Kumari did not acquire Pusa Road Bungalow by survivorship but under the Will and, therefore, the correct status of the assessee is that of individual. We do not find any substance in the submission of the departmental representative. In our opinion, the case of the assessee that Smt. Shanti Kumari was an ostensible owner of Pusa Road Bungalow and real owner thereof was Late Shri Maharaj Kishore is legally sound. A perusal of the family arrangement deed clearly shows that Smt. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Rs. 16,785 6 per cent Collection Charges Rs. 1,065 . Rs. 15,720 Taking the multiple 16, the approved valuer determined the value of full Bungalow at Rs. 2,75,000. Relying on his report the assessee showed the value of his one half share at Rs. 1,37,500 for the purpose of Wealth-tax. The WTO did not agree with the approved valuer's report and he determined the value of full Bungalow at Rs. 3,93,000 observing as follows: "The property is situated at a place where the value of the land as well as building is very high. As such the multiple of 25 time of the rental income is applied for arriving at for the valuation of property. The value of the property as on the date of the valuation is estimated at ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
