CET Vs. BALDEO DASS RAMESHWAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE assessee, M/s. Baldeo Dass Rameshwar, was assessed to expenditure tax in the status of an HUF, in respect of assessment years 1958-59 and 1959-60, referable to the accounting years ending on Diwali Samvat 2013 and 2014, respectively. THE HUF, M/s. Baldeo Dass Rameshwar, consisted of Rameshwar Nathani and his sons and grandsons. Besides two businesses carried on in the name of M/s. Baldeo Dass Rameshwar and M/s, Rameshwar Nathani & Co., the HUF had a 12 annas share in a partnership business carried on in the name of M/s. Dudwala & Co., wherein the interest of the HUF was represented by its karta, Rameshwar Nathani. In the year 1943, a suit for partition was filed by Satyanarayan, one of the members of the HUF, in the original civil jurisdiction of the Calcutta High Court and a consent decree was passed by the High Court on March 18, 1944, in terms of a settlement arrived at between the parties. THE relevant clauses of the settlement, which were incorporated in the compromise decree passed by the Calcutta High Court are as under:

(2.) ACCORDING to Clause 3 each one of the plaintiff and the defendants were entitled to l/6th share of the joint family properties which consisted of movable and immovable properties and the two businesses referred to above besides 12 annas share in the partnership firm, M/s. Dudwala & Co.

(3.) IN Ramalinga Annavi v. Narayana Annavi, AIR 1922 PC 201, their Lordships of the Privy Council, approving the dictum of Lord Westbury in the case of Appovier v. Rama Subba Aiyan, observed as under (p. 205):