9911796707
TMI Blog1983 (12) TMI 83X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... neither clearly brought out in the assessment order nor in the order of the AAC. The assessee's husband, Shri Kanwal Kishore, took four anticipated policies, as the assessee has described them, of Rs. 20,000 each from the LIC as provided in section 6 of the Married Women's Property Act, 1874. The total premium payable on these four policies amounted to Rs. 5,272.40 per annum. These were taken in the year 1963-64 and excepting two payments out of total premium paid amounting to Rs. 68,541, the balance amount of over Rs. 62,000 was, in fact, paid from the funds of the HUF of the husband. The trustees, however, got the policies paid up in 1976 and paid the amount received to the assessee. The dispute in these appeals is in respect of interest ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sion of the Tribunal, which was cited before the AAC was also cited before me. The decision was in the case of Liladhar Jajoo in [WT Appeal No. 81 (Asr.) of 1979, order dated 19-8-1980.] 4. The stand of the revenue against the order of the AAC is contained in ground No. 2, which is quoted below : "2. The learned AAC failed to note that section 64 is not applicable in the case of a HUF and does not require or permit the inclusion of the income of the wife of the karta in computing the total income of the HUF. The learned AAC failed to appreciate that as also stated in her order the premium for the insurance policy taken under the Married Women's Property Act were paid by the HUF and not by the assessee's husband as individual, section 64 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... usband of the assessee-lady. 6. On a consideration of the rival submissions and the relevant provisions of the Married Women's Property Act and the extract from the LIC publication referred to by the assessee's counsel, I am of the opinion that the stand of the revenue is correct and the AAC fell in error in both the cases. The relevant portion of section 6 of the Married Women's Property Act is quoted below : "6. Insurance by husband for benefit of wife.--(1) A policy of insurance effected by any married man on his own life, and expressed on the face of it to be for the benefit of his wife, or of his wife and children, or any of them, shall enure and be deemed to be a trust for the benefit of his wife, or of his wife and children, or a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hese provisions of law, it is clear that the amount received by either of the two ladies was for their benefit and could not revert back to the person, who financed the policies. In the instant case, it is the stand of the assessee that in reality it is the HUF of the husband, which took out the four policies and paid the premium. According to section 6, the amount received under the policies will belong to the lady herself and cannot belong to the husband himself or to his HUF. The extract from the LIC publication is quoted by me below. "(15) HUF and MWP Act Policies : If a karta of a HUF takes out a life insurance policy on his life and pays the premium out of the HUF funds, then the policy belongs to the HUF. In view of this position, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
