1971-VIL-178-SC-DT

Equivalent Citation: [1972] 84 ITR 699 (SC)

Supreme Court of India

Date: 08.11.1971

COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH-TAX, WEST BENGAL

Vs

GAURI SHANKAR BHAR

BENCH

Judge(s) :  K. S. HEGDE., A. N. GROVER. and H. R. KHANNA.

JUDGMENT

On the above facts, the question of law that arises is as follows :

" Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in cancelling the assessment made in the status of a Hindu undivided family? "

(The Calcutta High Court, by its judgment dated July 26, 1967, answered the question in the affirmative. See [1968] 68 I.T.R. 345. The Commissioner appealed to the Supreme Court.]

Jagadish Swarap, Solicitor-General of India (B. D. Sharma, Advocate, with him), for the appellant.

T. A. Ramachandran, Advocate, amicus curiae, for the respondent.

JUDGMENT

The judgment of the court was delivered by

HEGDE J.--The learned Solicitor-General appearing for the Commissioner of Wealth-tax very appropriately conceded that the property with which we are concerned in this case was the individual property of the deceased Prafulla Chandra Bhar. He also conceded that on the death of the said Prafulla Chandra Bhar the property devolved on his heirs in severalty. Each one of his heirs took a definite share in the property left by the deceased. In view of that concession it is not necessary for us to decide in this case whether a Dayabhaga Hindu family can be considered as a Hindu undivided family within the meaning of section 3 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957.

Quite clearly on the facts of this case the heirs of the deceased took the property of the deceased in separate shares. Therefore, in law each one of them is liable to pay wealth-tax as individual. It cannot be said that an individual who inherits some property from some one becomes a Hindu undivided family merely because he is a member of the Hindu undivided family.

In this view of the matter we find no substance in this appeal and the appeal is accordingly dismissed. The respondent has not appeared in this case. Hence there will be no order as to costs. We are thankful to Mr. T. A. Ramachandran for appearing as amicus curiae in this case at our request.

Appeal dismissed.

 

DISCLAIMER: Though all efforts have been made to reproduce the order accurately and correctly however the access, usage and circulation is subject to the condition that VATinfoline Multimedia is not responsible/liable for any loss or damage caused to anyone due to any mistake/error/omissions.