SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
14th April, 1960
S.K. DAS, J.L. KAPUR AND M. HIDAYATULLAH, JJ.
Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay North, Kutch and Saurashtra, Ahmedabad, Appellant
Versus
Smt. Indira Balkrishna, Respondent.
Civil Appeals Nos. 249 and 250 of 1958.
Advocates appeared
Mr. K. N. Rajagopal Sastri, Senior Advocate (Mr. D. Gupta, Advocate, with him), for Appellant; Mr. N. A. Palkhivala, Senior Advocate, (M/s. S. N. Andely and J. B. Dadachanji, Advocates of M/s. Rajinder Narain and Co. with him), for Respondent.
– under the Hindu Law as it stood in 1924, two widows inheriting their husband’s properties took together one estate as joint tenants with rights of survivorship and equal beneficial enjoyment. They were entitled to enforce a partition of those properties so that each could separately possess and enjoy the portion allotted to her. Neither of them could without the consent of the other enforce an absolute partition of the estate so as to destroy the right of survivorship – See Commissioner of Income Tax v. Indira Balakrishna, AIR 1960 SC 1172 = 1960 (3) SCR 513. However the relinquishment of the right of survivorship was permissible as a result of mutual arrangement as held in Karpagathachi v. Nagarthinathachi, AIR 1965 SC 1752 =1965(3) SCR 325. Followed in Bindumati Bai v. Narbada Prasad, AIR 1977 SC 394 = 1976(4) SCC 626 = 1977(1) SCR 988 = 1976 UJ (SC) 923 = 1977(1) SCWR 243.
Judgment
S. K. Das, J. : These two appeals with special leave have been heard together. They arise out of similar facts and the question of law arising therefrom is the same.
2. The short facts are these. One Balkrishna Purshottam Purani died on November 11, 1947. He left behind him three widows and two daughters. The three widows were named Indira, Ramluxmi and Prabhuluxmi. These widows as legal heirs inherited the estate of the deceased, which consisted of immovable properties situate in Ahmedabad, shares in Joint Stock Companies, money lying in deposit, and share in a registered firm. For the two assessment years 1950-51 and 1951-52 (the corresponding account years being the Sambat years 2005 and 2006) the Income-tax Officer issued notices to the legal heirs of Balkrishna Purushottam Purani. Pursuant to those notices, returns were filed under the heading. "Legal heirs of Balkrishna Purushottam Purani", in one case and in the name of the estate of Balkrishna in the other; the status was shown as "individual" in one case and "association of persons" in the other. They were signed by Indira, one of the three widows. For the assessment year 1950-51 the total income was shown as under-
Property. .. Rs. 11,011
Share from registered firm. .. Rs. 4,071
Dividends. .. Rs. 51,796
Interest. .. Rs. 22,343
Ground rent. .. Rs. 125
Total .. Rs. 69,346.
For the assessment years 1951-52, the total income was shown as-
Property. .. Rs. 10,879
Share from registered firm. .. Rs. 460
Dividends. .. Rs. 80,426
Interest on deposits. .. Rs. 536
Ground rent. .. Rs. 125
Total .. Rs. 92,426.
For both years the Income-tax Officer took the status of the assessee as an "association of persons" and on that footing made two assessment orders. There was an appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, and two of the points taken before him were - (a) that the three widows ought to have been assessed separately and not as an "association of persons", and (b) that in any event, the income from property ought to have been assessed separately in the hands of the three widows by reason of the provisions in S. 9(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1922. The Appellant Assistant Commissioner rejected point (a) but accepted point (b). then, there was a further appeal to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bombay. The Tribunal held that the entire estate of deceased Balkrishna Purushottam Purani was inherited and possessed by the three widows as joint tenants and its income was liable to be assessed in their hands in the status of an association of persons. The Tribunal further held that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was wrong in holding that the shares of the three widows were definite and determinable and S. 9(3) was applicable. The assessee then moved the Tribunal to refer certain questions of law which arose out of its orders to the High Court of Bombay. The Tribunal referred four such questions, but we are now concerned with only one of them, viz., question No. 3 which was in the following terms :
"3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessment made on the three widows of Balkrishna Purushottam Purani in the status of an association of persons in legal and valid in law?" Two references were made to the High Court in respect of the orders passed for two assessment years and they gave rise to Income-tax Reference Nos. 52 and 53 of 1955. The leading judgment was given in I.T.R. 52 of 1955. The High Court held that the Tribunal was in error in coming to the conclusion that the three widows could be assessed in the status of an association of persons with regard to the income which they earned as heirs of their deceased husband. Therefore, it answered question No. 3 in the negative. The department represented by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay, then applied to this Court and obtained special leave to appeal from the judgment, and orders of the High Court of Bombay in the two References. These two appe
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.