TMI Blog1977 (8) TMI 6X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... est of the deceased in the coparcenary property passed on his death. It also held that an amount of Rs. 3,50,000 which was settled by the deceased under a trust of which the deceased himself was a managing trustee and over which the deceased had an absolute power of disposal also passed on the death of the deceased. The accountable person, i.e., Smt. Ramkunwar Bai went up in appeal to the Appellate Controller of Estate Duty and before the appellate authority two questions were raised; that the deceased and his wife, Ramkunwar Bai, constituted a joint Hindu family and, therefore, the deceased only had half interest in the assets of the HUF. Therefore, only half of the property of the coparcenary would be deemed to have passed on the death of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Rs. 82,000 out of the amount of Rs. 3,50,000 which was entrusted to a trust of which the deceased himself was the managing trustee, it is not disputed that this amount of Rs. 82,000 remained in the custody and care of the deceased himself and it was he who was utilising this amount. Learned counsel appearing for Smt. Ramkunwar Bai, however, contended that the learned Tribunal was wrong in applying s. 10 of the E.D. Act (hereinafter referred to as " the Act "). It should have applied the provisions contained in s. 12 of the E.D. Act. Learned counsel appearing for the Department, however, contended that by creating a trust the amount was gifted away to the trust and in view of this, the clear provision contained in s. 10 of the Act could ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... perty is capable of, and, secondly, that he must not retain any benefit for himself by contract or some such other obligation. " And, applying these two tests their Lordships held that under the facts of that particular case, s. 10 of the Act did not apply. But applying these two tests in the present case it could not be doubted that the second test, if applied, goes against Smt. Ramkunwar Bai, as the donor retained the benefit for himself of the sum, i.e., Rs. 82,000, as found by the Tribunal. In the light of this it could not be doubted that the Tribunal rightly applied s. 10 of the Act. Hence our answer to the first question is in the affirmative, holding that a sum of Rs. 82,000 was correctly included in the estate of the deceased as pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ese being the sons, grandsons, and great-grandsons of the holder of the joint property for the time being. The plea that there must be at least two male members to form a Hindu undivided family as a taxable entity has no force. Under Hindu law a joint family may consist of a single male-member and widows of deceased male members. The expression 'Hindu undivided family' in the Income-tax Act is used in the sense in which Hindu joint family is understood under the various schools of Hindu law (see Attorney-General of Ceylon v. Ar. Arunachalam Chettiar [1958] 34 ITR (ED) 42 (PC) and Gowli Buddanna v. Commissioner of Income-tax [1966] 60 ITR 293 (SC)). In the case of Commissioner of Income-tax v. Rm. Ar. Ar. Veerappa Chettiar [1970] 76 ITR 467 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
