| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1989 SLG 2697 1989 SLD 2697 (1989) 180 ITR 598 |
Kerala High Court
K.S PARIPOORNAN AND K.A. NAYAR, JJ.
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
K.S PARIPOORNAN AND K.A. NAYAR, JJ.
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
Commissioner of Wealth Tax
v.
P.M. Padmanabhan
Law:
Section:
Section 3 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 read with section 4 of the Kerala Joint Hindu Family System (Abolition) Act, 1975 - Hindu undivided family - Assessability of - Assessment years 1977-78 and 1978-79 - Assessee and his wife were only members of a HUF in Kerala - ITO assessed assessee on entire property of HUF - Tribunal held that assessee's wife was also entitled to a share of HUF property and so assessee should be assessed on his presumptive share only - Whether female member's entitlement to share depended on customary law applicable to assessee and, therefore, Tribunal was not justified in holding as above without going into question of assessee's personal law - Held, yes FACTS The assessee, a Jain by religion, was the sole coparcener of a HUF in Kerala. His wife was the only other member of the HUF. The WTO assessed the assessee as an individual including in his assessments the entire assets which belonged to the HUF. In Kerala, the HUF had become extinct as a result of the passing of the Kerala Joint Hindu Family System (Abolition) Act. The AAC held that in view of the above-mentioned Act, only the presumptive share of the assessee in the properties could be assessed in his hands. The Tribunal upheld the decision of the AAC. It held that it was not correct to say that a female member was not entitled to a share on partition of the joint family properties. On reference : HELD The assessee being a Jain was governed by Hindu law, as modified by custom. Only if, by the law applicable to the particular school of Hindu Mitakshara law or by the customary law of the particular person, a female member can demand partition or is allotted a share on partition in lieu of her right to maintenance or marriage expenses, then only she is entitled to a share in the properties. The said right is not universal in all schools of Hindu Mitakshara law. Therefore, the first thing to be ascertained was the particular school of law by which the assessee was governed. The further question would be whether, by the particular school of law by which the assessee was governed, the female member could claim partition or was entitled to a share on partition in lieu of her right to…
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492