COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX vs. CHANDRASINHRAO D GAEKWAD

WTR/29/1984HC GujaratGJHC24012177198412 May 1999Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BALIA,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL R. DAVE3 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court answered both questions in the negative, in favor of the revenue and against the assessee. The Court noted that identical questions arising from the immediately preceding five assessment years (1966-67 to 1970-71) had been referred to the same court in WTR No. 54/83 and were decided on November 5, 1998. In that prior decision, both questions were answered in favor of the revenue. The Court found no change in the facts and circumstances of the present case that would warrant a different conclusion. Therefore, following its previous decision, the Court held that there was no complete partition of the HUF upon the death of Chandrasinhrao, and consequently, his share was not liable to be excluded from the wealth of the assessee HUF. The operative direction was to answer both referred questions in the negative.

What were the facts?

The Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Baroda, referred two questions of law to the High Court of Gujarat concerning Assessment Years 1971-72 to 1975-76. The assessee, Chandrasinhrao H. Gaekwad, was assessed as a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) consisting of two brothers, Chandrasinhrao (the karta) and Dilipsinhrao. Chandrasinhrao died on March 27, 1965. Following his death, it was claimed that a complete partition of HUF properties had occurred between the two branches of brothers. This claim was rejected by the Wealth Tax Officer and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. However, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner held that property vested in Chandrasinhrao's heirs by succession should be excluded from the HUF's wealth. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal upheld this view, relying on decisions from the Gujarat High Court and Mysore High Court.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in concluding that, on the death of Shri Chandrasinhrao on March 27, 1965, there was a complete partition of the assessee HUF of which Chandrasinhrao was the Karta? (Question of law) 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in concluding that the share of the deceased Chandrasinhrao in the HUF properties was liable to be excluded from the wealth of the assessee HUF? (Question of law) Assessee's contentions: The assessee claimed that upon the death of Chandrasinhrao, a complete partition of the HUF properties occurred. They also contended that the share of the deceased Chandrasinhrao in the HUF properties should be excluded from the wealth of the existing HUF. Revenue's contentions: The revenue contended that no complete partition had occurred and that the deceased's share was not liable for exclusion from the HUF's wealth. The judgment notes that similar questions for preceding assessment years (1966-67 to 1970-71) were decided in favor of the revenue.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 171

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

WEALTH TAX REFERENCE No 29 of 1984

For Approval and Signature:

Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE R.BALIA. and MR.JUSTICE A.R.DAVE ============================================================ 1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgements?

2.

To be referred to the Reporter or not?

3.

Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgement?

4.

Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950 of any Order made thereunder?

5.

Whether it is to be circulated to the Civil Judge? 1 to 5: No

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 171

All 74 judgments and leading authorities on Section 171 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →