COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX Vs. HARSHADLAL MANILAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this case the following question has been referred to us for our opinion by the Appellate Tribunal at the instance of the revenue :

(2.) THE relevant assessment year in this case is 1964 -65 and the assessee in this case is an individual. The assessee's father, Manilal, was assessed as an individual in respect of his self -acquired properties and in respect of income from such property. Manilal dies in February, 1926, leaving behind him his widow, his only son, the present assessee, and his daughter, Vasumati. At the time of the death of Manilal, both the assessee and his sister, Vasumati, were unmarried. Subsequently, the assessee got married to Mrinalini and Mrinalini bore a child, a daughter, Jayashree, and no other issue was born to the couple. What the assessee received on the death of his father, Manilal, consisted entirely of the self -acquired properties of Manilal. Before the Wealth -tax Officer, the assessee claimed the status of a Hindu undivided family in regard to the net wealth which consisted entirely of the assets which he had received on the death of his father, Manilal. On the relevant valuation date the family consisted of the assessee, his wife, Mrinalini, his daughter and his mother. The Wealth -tax Officer held that the correct status was to be treated as an individual and not that of a Hindu undivided family. Against the decision of the Wealth -tax Officer, the matter was carried in appeal by the assessee and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner upheld the decision of the Wealth -tax Officer and dismissed the appeal. The matter was taken in further appeal to the Appellate Tribunal and the Tribunal held that the value of the assets left behind him by the assessee's father, Manilal, on his death was to be assessed in the hands of the Hindu undivided family represented by the assessee and not in the individual capacity of the assessee. On these facts, at the instance of the revenue, the question hereinabove set out has been referred to us for our opinion.

(3.) WE may point out that the assumption on which their Lordships of the Privy Council proceeded in Kalyanji Vithaldas's case no longer holds good after the decision in Arunachala Mudaliar v. Muruganatha Mudaliar. After considering the text of the Mitakshara and various relevant texts, the Supreme Court observed at page 499 of the report :