HAJEE ABDULLA SAIT Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AFTER the death of Hajee Mohd. Hussain Sait in 1955, his two sons, namely, Hajee Abdul Sait (assessee) and Hajee Abdul Sattar Sait, claimed in the assessment proceeding under the Estate Duty Act that they belong to the Cutchi Memons sect of Muslims and in the matter of inheritance and succession including rules as to joint family property, the right of the same by birth and devolution thereto by survivor in the civil station area of Bangalore City. Ultimately, the Mysore High Court in the case of Hajee Abdul Sattar Sait v. CED [1968] 69 ITR 45, and on appeal from the decision, the Supreme Court in the case of CED v. Hajee Abdul Sattar Sait [1972] 86 ITR 53, upheld their contention that only 1/3rd of the undivided share of Hajee Mohd. Hussain passed on to them on his death for the purpose of assessment under the Estate Duty Act. The Mysore Cutchi Memons Act 1 of 1943 ("the Act" for short), become applicable in the year 1948 after retrocession of the civil area of Bangalore when this law was extended to that area.

(2.) SO far as the assessee is concerned, the law applicable to him is as held in Hajee Abdul Sattar Sait's case [1968] 69 ITR 45 (Mys) and in CED v. Hajee Abdul Sattar sait case . Indeed, the assessee and his brother being accountable persons under the Estate Duty Act had contended before this court and the Supreme Court that they were governed by rules applicable to the coparcenary property under the Mitakshara school of Hindu law. While examining the scope and effect of the law as contemplated in Cutchi Memons Act. This court in the case of Hajee Abdul Sattar Sait's Case [1968] 69 ITR 45, observed as follows (at page 52):

(3.) WHETHER, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the property and the assessable income therefrom are the property and income belonging to the joint family or whether they were are the separate property and income of the applicant ?"