RAJNI BHARGHAVA Vs. CONTROLLER OF ESTATE DUTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad, has referred the following question under Section 64 (1) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953 :

(2.) THE relevant facts are the following. THE deceased Dr. S. N. Bhargava, died on November 12, 1983. His wife, Smt. Rajni Bhargava, filed a return as the accountable person. Dr. Bhargava was survived by his wife and two daughters. On the date of his death, he held certain separate properties with which we are not concerned. He was also the karta of a Hindu undivided family which held certain properties on the date of his death. He was the sole surviving coparcener. During the assessment proceedings, a question arose whether, on the death of Dr. Bhargava, his interest in the Hindu undivided family property was total and absolute or whether it was only half. In other words, the question was whether his wife, Smt. Rajni Bhargava, had a half share in the Hindu undivided family property, which would mean that, on the death of Dr. Bhargava, only his half share passed to his heirs. All the three authorities have held that since Dr. Bhargava was the sole surviving coparcener, his interest was total and that the entire estate (Hindu undivided family properties) passed to his heirs. This was so held following the decision of this court in CED v. Kalawati Devi [1980] 125 ITR 762. It is thereupon that the accountable person applied for and obtained this reference. Mr. Rastogi, learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that, on the date of death of Dr. Bhargava, his interest in the Hindu undivided family property was only half and not full and, therefore, only his half interest passed on his death. He contended on the basis of the decision of the Supreme Court in CED v. Alladi Kuppuswamy [1977] 108 ITR 439 (SC) that the wife too had an equal share with the husband on the date of his death. We cannot agree. THE decision relied upon by learned counsel deals with the nature of interest acquired by a Hindu widow under the Hindu Womens Rights to Property Act, 1937. THE Supreme Court explained that, by virtue of the provisions of the said Act, a widow steps into the shoes of her husband though having a limited estate and, therefore, when she dies, her interest passed to her heirs. THE said decision, in our opinion, has no relevance whatsoever to the facts of the present case. This is not a case where the death of Dr. Bhargava took place at a time when the 1937 Act was in force.