| Case ID |
3336b73d-f869-4fb2-ab38-fc6cad27f7ea |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
WT REFERENCE No. 8 OF 1968 |
| Decision Date |
Nov 04, 1970 |
| Hearing Date |
Oct 17, 1970 |
| Decision |
The court held that the notice issued under section 17, read with section 14(2) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, and the assessment made in pursuance thereof was valid. The Wealth-tax Officer is required to make an inquiry if it is brought to his notice that a partition has occurred among members of a Hindu undivided family. If satisfied that the joint family property has been partitioned in definite portions, he must record an order and proceed with the assessment. If not satisfied, he must declare that the family continues as a Hindu undivided family for the purposes of the Act. The court emphasized the importance of physical partition by metes and bounds and clarified the interpretation of 'definite portions' in the context of Hindu law. |
| Summary |
This case revolves around the assessment of wealth tax on a Hindu undivided family (HUF) under the Wealth-tax Act, 1957. The key legal issue was whether the family had undergone a partition before the relevant valuation date, which would affect the applicability of wealth tax. The court analyzed the provisions of section 20 of the Act, which mandates the Wealth-tax Officer to determine if a partition has occurred through an inquiry. The court ruled that if the officer is satisfied with the partition's legitimacy, he must record the order and assess the net wealth accordingly. The judgment also clarified the interpretation of terms used in Hindu law regarding partition, emphasizing the need for tangible division of property. The decision is significant for understanding the assessment procedures related to HUFs and the legal interpretations of partition in wealth tax cases. |
| Court |
Gujarat High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
Not available
|
| Judges |
P.N. Bhagwati, C.J.,
B.J. Divan, J.
|
| Lawyers |
S.B. Vakil for the Applicant,
J.M. Thakore and M.G. Doshit for the Respondent
|
| Petitioners |
Goswami Brijratanlalji Maharaj
|
| Respondents |
Commissioner of Wealth Tax
|
| Citations |
1971 SLD 449,
(1971) 79 ITR 373
|
| Other Citations |
Gordhandas T. Mangaldas v. CIT [1943] 11 ITR 183 (Bom.),
Joint Family of Udayan Chinubhai v. CIT [1967] 63 ITR 416 (SC),
Srilal Bagri v. CWT [1970] 77 ITR 901 (Cal.)
|
| Laws Involved |
Wealth-tax Act, 1957
|
| Sections |
20,
14(2),
17
|