COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX Vs. RAMAKRISHNAN K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a reference under s. 27(1) of the W.T. Act, 1957, and questions referred are as follows

(2.) THERE was one K. Rengiah, who has two sons by name Kamatchisundaram and Subbarayalu. The said three constituted a joint Hindu family, Kamatchisundaram and Subbarayalu executed two release deeds on November 20, 1932, and February 11, 1932, respectively, in favour of their father, after receiving a sum of Rs. 1, 00, 000. Prior to these releases, the income from all properties belonging to the family was assessed in the hands of the family. After the release deeds, Rengiah was assessed in the status of an "individual". It appears that the two sons were also assessed in the status of individuals respectively. It is not, however, clear as to when they were married and got any child or children Rengiah died intestate on July 9, 1949. Thereafter, the properties left by Rengiah devolved on the two sons, and they were, however, assessed to income -tax and wealth -tax in the status of an HUF describing Kamatchisundaram as the karta. Kamatchisundaram died in 1968

(3.) THE learned counsel for the Commissioner, Mr. A. N. Rengasami, contended that assessment had been made on Kamatchisundaram as representing an HUF consisting of himself and his brother, and that until a partition of this family Was recognised, the property could be taken as belonging to the HUF. His further submission was that in the connected income -tax proceedings the case put forward by the assessee was that there was a partition in that family with effect from June 12, 1966, and that as the valuation date was March 13, 1966, which fell before the date of partition claimed by the assessee itself, the assessment could only be made in the status of an HUF. For the respondent the submission was that there was no HUF at any time consisting of Kamatchisundaram and his brother and that the assessment could be made only on the respective co -owners with reference to their shares in the properties. The proceedings under s. 171 of the I.T. Act did not, it was submitted, affect the assessment under the W.T. Act From the facts mentioned above, one position is clear, namely, that the release by the two sons in 1932 was taken to be a partition and that is how the separate individual assessments came to be made on the three erstwhile members. We are now concerned with the properties left by Rengiah, who died on July 9, 1949, before the coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956