Back
1971 Supreme(SC) 694
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K.S. Hegde, A.N. Grover and H.R. Khanna, JJ.
Commissioner of Wealth-tax, West Bengal - Appellant
Versus
Gauri Shankar Bhar - Respondent
Civil Appeal No 163 of 1969 and Appeal from the judgment and order dated July 26, 1967, of the Calcutta High Court in Matter No. 71 of 1963.
Decided On : 8-11-1971
For the Appellant :- Jagadish Swarup, Solicitor of India (B.D. Sharma, Advocate, with him).
For the Respondent:- T.A. Ramachandran, Amicus Curiae.
Inheritance of property in separate shares makes the heirs individually liable for wealth-tax, regardless of their membership in a Hindu undivided family.
Headnote:
Wealth-tax - Hindu Undivided Family - Property Devolution
Fact of the Case:
The property in question was the individual property of the deceased and devolved on his heirs in separate shares. The court did not need to decide whether a Dayabhaga Hindu family can be considered as a Hindu undivided family.
Finding of the Court:
The heirs of the deceased took the property in separate shares, making each of them liable to pay wealth-tax as individuals. Merely being a member of a Hindu undivided family does not automatically make an individual a part of the Hindu undivided family for tax purposes.
Issues: The issue of whether a Dayabhaga Hindu family can be considered as a Hindu undivided family within the meaning of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 was raised but not decided by the court.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the heirs took the property in separate shares, making them individually liable for wealth-tax. The court did not delve into the specific classification of a Dayabhaga Hindu family as a Hindu undivided family for tax purposes.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and no costs were awarded to the respondent.
JUDGMENT :
K.S. Hegde, J. - The learned Solicitor-General appearing for the Commissioner of Wealth-tax very appropriately conceded that the property with which we are concerned in this case was the individual property of the deceased Prafulla Chandra Bhar. He also conceded that on the death of the said Prafulla Chandra Bhar the property devolved on his heirs in severalty. Each one of his heirs took a definite share in the property left by the deceased. In view of that concession it is not necessary for us to decide in this case whether a Dayabhaga Hindu family can be considered as a Hindu undivided family within the meaning of section 3 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957.
2. Quite clearly on the facts of this case the heirs of the deceased took the property of the deceased in separate shares. Therefore, in law each one of them is liable to pay wealth-tax as individual. It cannot be said that an individual who inherits some property from some one becomes a Hindu undivided family merely because he is a member of the Hindu undivided family.
3. In this view of the matter we find no substance in this appeal and the appeal is accordingly dismissed. The respondent has not appeared in this case. Hence there will be no order as to costs. We are thankful to Mr. T. A. Ramachandran for appearing as amicus curiae in this case at our request.
Appeal dismissed.
