Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1975 (5) TMI 13

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nd of the ancestral estate held by him for himself and his sons ? " The years involved in the present reference are the Fasli years 1355, 1356, 1357, 1358 and 1359. In 1355 Fasli, a notice under section 15(3) of the Act was issued against the assessee, and he filed two sets of returns, one for the inherited property and the other for his self-acquired property. The assessing authority by order dated August 13, 1949, assessed an amount of Rs. 19,700-11-0 as tax treating both the properties as joint. An appeal was filed against this order by the assessee before the Commissioner and by order dated March 24, 1950, the Commissioner remanded the matter to the assessing authority. On remand, the assessing authority treated the properties as sep .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 53. In 1358 Fasli, the assessing authority treated both the sets of properties as separate units and vide its order dated October 30, 1957, assessed a tax of Rs. 14,553 on " Bibi Kunwar Estate " and Rs. 190-4-0 on ancestral property, i.e., an aggregate total tax of Rs. 17,143-4-0. In 1359 Fasli, the two estates were treated as separate units and by the order dated December 30, 1952, were assessed to a tax of Rs. 17,257-11-0 on " Bibi Kunwar Estate " and Rs. 284-12-0 on ancestral estate. This assessment was challenged before the Commissioner, by the assessee in appeal, who dismissed it by his order dated January 20, 1954. The assessment for 1355 Fasli to 1359 Fasli treating the two estates separately were challenged by the State in .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Harbans Singh died issueless and was succeeded by his wife, Rani Bibi Kunwar. Tej Bal Bikram Singh, son of Pradip Singh, had died before Rani Bibi Kunwar. After the death of Rani Bibi Kunwar, a dispute arose as to the succession to the estate. The estate was taken over under the management of the court of wards, and subsequently, the name of Raja Ram Singh was mutated over the estate of Rani Bibi Kunwar. Ram Singh had, before succeeding to the estate of Rani Bibi Kunwar in 1943, held the estate of his father, Tej Bal Bikram Singh. Thus, Ram Singh became entitled to the two estates, (1) the ancestral estate which he had inherited from his father, Tej Bal Bikram Singh, (2) the estate of Rani Bibi Kunwar which he had got on reversion. The .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ce on sections 2(11), 3 and 10 of the Act, held that the income from both these estates could be clubbed in the hands of Kr. Ram Singh alone. In order to scrutinise the correctness of this proposition it is necessary to set out section 2(11), section 3 and section 10 of the U.P. Agricultural Income-tax Act : " 2. (11) 'person' means an individual or association of individuals, owning or holding property, for himself or for any other, or partly for his own benefit and partly for that of another either as owner, trustee, receiver manager, administrator or executor or in any capacity recognised by law, and includes an undivided Hindu family, firm or company but does not include a local authority. 3. Charge of agricultural income-tax.-- A .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... section and brings to tax the total agricultural income of the previous year of every person. The definition of the word " person " includes an undivided Hindu family, as also other entities mentioned in section 2(11). Thus, for the purposes of the Act, a Hindu undivided family is taken as a taxable unit. In the present case, inasmuch as the estate known as " Kr. Ram Singh estate " had devolved upon the assessee, Kr. Ram Singh, from his father, it was ancestral property, and his sons had also a share therein. There is no finding that Kr. Ram Singh was separate from his sons. This being so, the the estate aforesaid belonged to the Hindu undivided family of Kr. Ram Singh and his sons. It was thus the Hindu undivided family that was the owner .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates