R. K. ABICHANDANI, J.

( 1 ) THE assessee filed return of income on 30/06/1969 showing total income of Rs. 8 294 and therefore a revised return on 3-12-1969 showing total income of Rs. 4 356 The assessee contended that she had no interest in the property left by her husband who died intestate on 9-8-1955 leaving self-acquired property. The deceased had left behind him his son and his widow who is the present assessee. The ITO held that half of the share of the self-acquired property of the deceased was assessable in the hands of the assessee as her absolute property and assessed her income accordingly by adding half share in the properties self-acquired and left by her deceased husband.

( 2 ) THE Appellate Assistant Commissioner upheld the decision of the ITO holding that the ITO had rightly assessed the one-half share of the income of the said property in the hands of the assessee. On further appeal. the Tribunal held that the lower authorities were not right in holding that the income from property inherited by the assessee should be assessed as an individual income and not as HUF income. The Tribunal held that in view of the decision of this Court in C. W. T. v. Harshadlal Manilal (97 ITR 86) the authorities below were wrong in holding that the assessee had held one-half share in the income of the self-acquired property of her deceased husband and that the said share belonged to her as her absolute property.

( 3 ) PURSUANT to the directions of this Court the Tribunal has referred for the opinion of the High Court the following two questions under Section 256 of the Income-Tax Act 1961 (hereinafter referred to as `the said Act) :1 Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in finding that the lower authorities were wrong in holding that the assessee was having half share in the income of the self-acquired property left by her husband and that the same belonged to the assessee as her absolute property ?2 Whether half share in income of self-acquired property left by the husband of the deceased is assessable in the hands of the assessee ?admittedly Shri Deviprasad M. Mehta husband of the assessee died on 9th August 1955 i. e. prior to the coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act 1956 leaving behind him his son and his widow - the assessee - who succeed to his self-acquired property. Since Deviprasad M. Mehta died before the coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act 1956 the rights of his widow in respect of his self-acquired property were governed by the provisions of the Hindu Womens Rights to property Act 1937 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act of 1937 As indicated in the Preamble the Act of 1937 was intended to give better rights to women in respect of property. The provisions of Section 3 dealing with devolution of property where a Hindu dies intestate which are material for the purpose of this matter are as follows :3 (1) When a Hindu governed by the Dayabhaga School of Hindu law dies intestate leaving any property and when a Hindu governed by any other school of Hindu Law or by customary law dies intestate leaving separate property his widow or if there is more than one widow all his widows together shall subject to the provisions of sub-section (3) be entitled in respect of property in respect of which he dies intestate to the same share as a son : Provided that the widow of a predeceased son shall inherit in like manner as a son if there is no son surviving of such predeceased son and shall inherit in like manner as a sons son if there is surviving a son or sons son of such predeceased son :provided further that the same provision shall apply mutatis mutandis to the widow of a predeceased son of a predeceased son. 3 When a Hindu governed by any school of Hindu Law other than the Dayabhaga school or by customary law dies having at the time of his death an interest in a Hindu joint family property his widow shall subject to the provisions of sub-section

Click Here to Read the rest of this document