BAHADURSINGH KASLIWAL MAHARAJA Vs. CONTROLLER OF ESTATE DUTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS and Misc. Civil Case No. 133 of 1976 are references made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Indore, one at the instance of the accountable person and the other at the instance of the Controller of Estate Duty.

(2.) THE facts relevant for the purpose of disposal of these two references are:

(3.) THERE was also liability on the HUF of Sir Seth Hukumchand as arrears of income-tax due to the income-tax department and when Shri Rajkumarsinghji partitioned his HUF the liabilities of the income-tax also fell to the share of all the members of the HUF including deceased Premkumari Devi. It was, therefore, contended that Premkumari Devi on partition did not get only 1/21 share of the assets of the original HUF of Sir Seth Hukumchand but got something more, as she also got one-seventh share in the jewellery and valuables that Shri Rajkumarsinghji got as gift from his father and mother, consequently, she should be given the benefit of deducting proportionate liability of tax relating to the bigger HUF, than 1/21 share. As this contention was not accepted and she was only allowed deduction of 1/21 share of the tax liability of the HUF of Sir Seth Hukumchand and one-seventh of the tax liability finally determined in the case of the Hindu divided family of Shri Rajkumarsinghji, therefore, the accountable person sought reference on this question.