TMI Blog1992 (10) TMI 38X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... amount in the wealth of the assessee individual was not justified is correct in law ? Prior to partition on May 21, 1962, the joint family of Gordhanbhai Jethabhai Patel consisted of Gordhanbhai, his wife, his five sons and one unmarried daughter. The joint family properties were partitioned on May 21, 1962, and in that partition, Gordhanbhai, his wife and five sons were given their shares. However, no provision was made for the unmarried daughter. Gordhanbhai had made a gift of Rs. 75,001 on October 20, 1966, to the Hindu undivided family consisting of himself, his wife and his unmarried daughter. The Wealth-tax Officer added the sum of Rs. 75,001 to the wealth of the assessee for the assessment year 1967-68 on the ground that the Hindu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he appeals. The Revenue, feeling aggrieved by the decision of the Tribunal, preferred to file reference applications before the Tribunal and called upon the Tribunal to refer the following two questions to this court: "1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the finding of the Appellate Tribunal that, in spite of the partition effective on May 21, 1962, there was a Hindu undivided family of Shri Gordhanbhai Jethabhai Patel and his unmarried daughter and consequently addition of gift amount in the wealth of the assessee individual was not justified is correct in law ? 2. Whether a Hindu undivided family which is a creature of law is once partitioned and its claim is accepted under the provisions of the Income-tax A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y is understood in the personal law of the Hindus. Under the Hindu system of law, a joint family may consist of a single male member and his wife and daughters and there is nothing in the scheme of the Wealth-tax Act to suggest that a Hindu undivided family as an assessable unit must consist of at least two male members. The Supreme Court has further observed therein that it is only by analysing the nature of the rights of the members of the undivided family, both those in being and those yet to be born, that it can be determined whether the family property can properly be described as "joint property" of the undivided family. It is not in dispute that the property which went to Gordhanbhai was a part of the joint family property and that h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g the income of Rs. 1,06,156 also as income of the Hindu undivided family and liable to tax in the hands of Hirday Narain under section 16(3)(a)(ii) of the Indian Income-tax Act. Hirday Narain then applied for rectification of a mistake in the order of assessment which he claimed was apparent from the record as section 16(3)(a)(ii) does not apply to cases of Hindu undivided families. The assessee's request was not accepted and ultimately the matter went to the Supreme Court. On considering the effect of the partition, the Supreme Court observed that there was in fact an existing Hindu undivided family of which, for a part of the period, Hirday Narain and his wife were members, and for the rest, besides the two, their infant son was a memb ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
