COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX Vs. PANNALAL RASTOGI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Patna Bench, has drawn up a statement of the case and referred to this court under Section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), the following question of law :

(2.) FOR determination of this question the only facts which are necessary to be stated are these. Shri Pannalal Rastogi, the assessee in this case, on partition of his erstwhile joint family, received properties which constituted his wealth for the purpose of wealth-tax under the Act. At the time of partition and also of assessment, the assessee's family consisted of himself and his wife. There was no issue, either male or female. In these circumstances, the question for consideration before the Appellate Tribunal was whether for the purpose of Section 3 of the Act the assessee's status could be taken to be as a Hindu undivided family, as shown by him in his return, or whether his status was rightly taken to be as that of an individual by the Wealth-tax Officer, as affirmed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The Tribunal followed the Bench decision of this court in Miscellaneous Judicial Case No. 193 of 1962 decided on 6th December, 1965, which decision is now reported in [1967] 65 I.T.R. 592 (Panna Lal Rastogi v. Commissioner of Income-tax). This was the case of the same assessee in respect of an earlier period. Facts, as mentioned in paragraph 4 of the report, are identical. This court held that even though the family of the assessee at the time of partition consisted of himself and his wife, the assessment must be in respect of the ancestral property of the assessee in the status of a Hindu undivided family and not as an individual. Although the point was covered directly by a decision of this court, the Appellate Tribunal felt persuaded to make a second reference to this court on the same point, as perhaps the point, in its opinion, was not free from difficulty.

(3.) IT is to be noticed, however, that this was a case where the father, the sole surviving coparcener of a Hindu undivided family to which also a number of females belonged, had died. The continuity of the family was preserved after the father's death by the adoptions, and in such a situation it was held that there was no break in the status of the Hindu undivided family.