KUSHAL CHAND SURANA Vs. COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE assessee has prayed before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal for making reference to this court in respect of two questions, but only one question was referred in respect of the assessment year 1976-77 under Section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, which is as under :

(2.) THE returns of wealth were filed by the assessee in respect of the period ending on Deewali, 1975, on July 1, 1976, showing the status as a Hindu undivided family. THE Wealth-tax Officer determined the net wealth and charged the tax which was applicable to the specified Hindu undivided family. In the appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) it was found that since no reasons have been given in the assessment order, therefore, the matter should be examined again by the Wealth-tax Officer as to why the status of specified Hindu undivided family is taken. THE assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) approached the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal by way of second appeal and contended that the only member of the Hindu undivided family having taxable wealth is the wife of the karta and since the wife is not a coparcener who can claim partition of the Hindu undivided family, it should be a considered to be a non-specified Hindu undivided family. THE Income-tax Appellate Tribunal observed that there is no difference between the term joint Hindu family which is used in the Hindu law and undivided family which is used in the Income-tax Act and Wealth-tax Act, but they have used the word "member" instead of "coparcener" and the wife being a member of the Hindu undivided family, the" status of the assessee has to be treated as that of specified (HUF ?).

(3.) THE use of the word "member" in the Schedule to the Wealth-tax Act, in the light of the decisions of the apex court and the provisions of the Hindu law make it clear that the wife is a member of the family and is not a coparcener. THEre is no requirement, under law that the member should be a coparcener. THE apex court itself has considered a wife a member and since the Schedule to the Wealth-tax Act has not required that the member should be a coparcener, the concept of Hindu law of a coparcenary cannot be invoked.