TMI Blog1982 (10) TMI 6X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nnilal Champalal, Baghana, Neemuch, devolved by survivorship to the smaller HUF of Shri Kishnalal Motilal, Baghana, Neemuch, without an order being made under s. 20 of the W.T. Act, 1957, for the wealth-tax assessment years 1972-73 to 1977-78 ?" The material facts giving rise to this reference briefly are as follows: The assessee is assessed in the status of an HUF. The assessment years in question are 1972-73 to 1977-78. The HUF consisted of coparceners, Kishanlal and his son, Omprakash. The WTO noticed that for the assessment years in question, value of the property of the HUF known as " Baghana House " was not included in these assessments, even though as a result of the death of Shri Champalal on May 28, 1971, leaving behind him no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r of the property in question. In, this view of the matter, the Tribunal reversed the orders passed by the AAC, and restored the orders passed by the WTO. Aggrieved by these orders, the assessee sought a reference and it is at the instance of the assessee that the aforesaid question of law has been referred to this court for its opinion. The learned counsel for the assessee contended that even after the death of Shri Champalal, the bigger HUF continued to exist till such time that partition took place and was recorded by the WTO in accordance with the provisions of s. 20 of the W.T. Act, 1957. The learned counsel contended that the fact that the coparceners of the assessee-HUF happened to be the same as constituted the bigger-HUF after th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ies, each of the branches by itself being a Hindu joint family. There could thus be two or more assessable units, the bigger one and the smaller one. In the instant case, however, after the death of Shri Champalal, by virtue of the provisions of s. 6 of the ,Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the interest of Shri Champalal in the bigger HUF devolved on the assessee-HUF on account of the fact that the coparceners of the assessee-HUF happened to be the only surviving coparceners of the bigger HUF. As a result of this devolution, the property in question, that is " Baghana House ", became the property of the assessee-HUF. The question of partition and the applicability of s. 20 of the W.T. Act, 1957, did not arise in the instant case. Therefore, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
