COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX Vs. D KRISHNA MURTHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN these three references the questions involved being interconnected, we have considered it more convenient to dispose of the three references together.

(2.) TAX Cases Nos. 891 of 1994 and 89 of 1994 relate to the assessment made on the Hindu undivided family of which Mr. D. Krishnamurthy is the karta. The assessment years are 1983-84 and 1986-87. TAX Case No. 89 of 1994 relates to the assessment of the same D. Krishnamurthy as individual and the assessment year is 1983-84.

(3.) THE facts are not in dispute. THE Hindu undivided family as noticed earlier consists of husband, wife and three minor children. THE Hindu undivided family owns a plot of urban land and a residential building has been constructed thereon wherein the family lives. THE building has been put up by the karta of the Hindu undivided family in his individual capacity. Though the building is owned by him as an individual, the building is used for the residence of all the members of the Hindu undivided family and the valuation of these assets of land and building in the circumstances is intertwined and it would be wholly inappropriate to value them separately by applying different provisions of the Act. Looking to the substance it is evident that the land on which the building has been erected by the karta in his individual capacity is in fact the land used for putting up the building in which they live. THE building is thus used for residential purpose of the individual who put it up as also by all the members of the Hindu undivided family of which he is the karta. THE individual who owns the building has substantial share as the coparcener of the Hindu undivided family property.