Judgment

RAMASWAMI, J.: These appeals are brought by certificate from the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court dated 30th November, 1964 in Reference Case No. 49 of 1962.

2. N. V. Rangarao, the father of the appellant, was the holder of an impartible estate called the "Munogala Estate" in the Krishna District in the State of Andhra Pradesh. This estate was abolished under the Madras Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948, and compensation under Section 45 of the Act was paid severally to the appellant, his father and his brothers. Other properties belonging to the joint family of the appellant, his father and brothers were also partitioned between them from time to time. The assets forming the subject of reference to the High Court consisted of investments made from the compensation amount received by appellant in securities, shares, etc. and also other assets such as deposits in Banks. The appellant filed returns for the assessment years 1957-58, 1958-59 and 1959-60 in the status of a Hindu Undivided family. The appellant s family during the material time consisted of himself his wife and his two minor daughters and there was no other male member. The appellant claimed to be assessed in the status of a Hindu Undivided Family inasmuch as the wealth returned consisted of ancestral property received or deemed to have been received by him on partition with his father and brothers. The Wealth Tax Officer did not accept the contention of the appellant and assessed him as an individual for the assessment years 1957-58, 1958-59 and 1959-60. On appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Wealth Tax the finding that he must be assessed as an individual was confirmed. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal however on appeal by the appellant held that he should be assessed in the status of a Hindu Undivided Family. Thereupon, the Commissioner of Wealth Tax applied to the Tribunal to state a case to the High Court under Section 27 (1) of the Wealth Tax Act (Act No. 27 of 1957) (hereinafter called the Act). The Tribunal accordingly referred the following question of law for the opinion of the High Court :-

"Whether the status of the assessee was rightly determined as Hindu Undivided Family ?"

The High Court disagreed with the view of the Appellate Tribunal and held that as the appellant s family did not have any other male coparcener all the assets forming the subject-matter of the returns filed by the appellant belonged to him as an individual and not a Hindu Undivided Family. The High Court answered the question against the appellant and in favour of the Commissioner of Wealth Tax.

3. It is necessary at this stage to set out the relevant provisions of the Act as they stood at the material time:-

"Section 2. In this Act unless the context otherwise requires -

(e) assets includes property of every description, movable or immovable, but does not include -

(i) agricultural land and growing crops, grass or standing trees on such lands :

(ii) any building owned or occupied by a cultivator or receiver of rent or revenue out of agricultural land;

* * * *

(iii) animals;

(iv) a right to any annuity in any case where the terms and conditions relating thereto preclude the commutation of any portion thereof into a lump sum grant,

(v) any interest in property where the interest is available to an assessee for a period not exceeding six years;

* * * *

(m) net wealth means the amount by which the aggregate value computed in accordance with the provisions of this Act of all the assets, wherever located, belonging to the assessee on the valuation date, including assets required to be included in his net wealth as on that date under this Act, is in excess of the aggregate value of all the debts owed by the assessee on the valuation date other than, -

(i) debts which under Section 6 are not to be taken into account; and

(ii) debts which are secured on, or which have been incurred in relation to, any assets in respect of which wealth-tax is not