LAWS(CAL)-1989-5-40

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. PRAFULLA KUMAR PANJA

Decided On May 09, 1989
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX Appellant
V/S
PRAFULLA KUMAR PANJA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this reference under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment years 1958-59 and 1959-60, the following question of law has been referred to this court :

(2.) The assessee family is governed by the Dayabhaga school of Hindu law. Formerly, the entire property belonged to a Hindu undivided family which consisted of four brothers, Satindra, Narendra, Prafulla and Radheshyam. Satindra died leaving behind him his two sons, Bhairab and Gopal. Thereafter the Hindu undivided family consisted of five members, namely, Bhairab and Gopal, the sons of Satindra (deceased) and their uncles Narendra, Prafulla and Radheyshyam. There is no dispute that, till before the previous year 1364 B.S. relevant for the assessment year 1958-59, the properties mentioned at Schedule 'B' to the assessment order of the Income-tax Officer for the year 1958-59, belonged to this Hindu undivided family. In the previous year 1364 B.S., Radheyshyam Panja gifted his undivided one-fourth share in the Schedule 'B' properties to his son, Jailal. The Income-tax Officer included the income from the remaining three-fourths share of the said properties in the total income of the assessee family.

(3.) The assessee's contention is that the three-fourths of the Schedule 'B' properties remaining after the gift of Radheyshyam Panja did not belong to the Hindu undivided family constituted of the five-members aforesaid, namely, Bhairab, Gopal, Narendra, Prafulla and Radheyshyam, for the simple reason that Radheyshyam did not have any interest in the Schedule 'B' properties after the gift made by him. According to the assessee's representative, the remainder of the Schedule 'B' properties belonged to a new smaller Hindu undivided family constituted of Bhairab, Gopal, Narendra and Prafulla. In any event, he contended that the assessment of the income from the three-fourths share of the property in the hands of the assessee-Hindu undivided family was illegal.