DEPUTY CAIT Vs. JAYAKUMAR T K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE tax revision cases are at the instance of the Revenue. They arise out of a common order passed by the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Additional Bench, Kozhikode, in A. I. T. A. Nos. 289, 290, 291 and 292 of 1989. THESE tax revision cases are coming up for hearing before us on a reference along with 0. P. Nos. 1893 of 1993, 10950 of 1992 and 9468 of 1992 (K. N. Indira Devi v. Deputy Commr. of Agrl. I. T. and Sales Tax, 1998 231 ITR 693 ), where similar issues are raised. The above-mentioned three original petitions have been disposed of by us under a separate judgment.

(2.) THE common questions raised in these tax revision cases are as follows :

(3.) IT is contended by Sri V. V. Asokan, Special G. P. (Taxes), on behalf of the Revenue, that neither Sub-section (1) nor Sub-section (2) of the Act has any application to the case of the assessee. Sub-section (1) of Section 4 applies only in the case of coparceners holding coparcenary property. So long as the wife and children of the assessee cannot be treated as coparceners there is no question of applying Sub-section (1) to their case. Whatever right they have in the property under the Mitakshara law has been protected under the proviso. He also contended that an undivided Hindu family governed by the Mitakshara law would not come within the purview of Sub-section (1) or Sub-section (2). He also pointed out that Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act has no application whatsoever in the facts of this case. Sub-section (2) applies only in the case of those who come under categories 1, 2 and 3 of the definition clause contained under Section 2 of the Act.