Back
Next 
INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MADRAS
R. RANGAYYA, T.V. RAJAGOPALA RAO, JJ.
Wealth-Tax Officer -Appellant
Versus
P.s.a. Ramaswamy Chettiar -Respondent
WEALTH-TAX APPEAL NOS. 943 AND 944 (MAD.) OF 1988
Decided On : 23-11-1989
Advocates Appeared:
C. S. Sethuraman,N. Devanathan
C. S. Sethuraman,N. Devanathan
ORDER
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
T. V. Rajagopala Rao, Judicial Member - These are departmental appeals relating to the assessment years 1982-83 and 1983-84. They arise out of the separate orders of the AAC dated 17th March 1988 passed for each of the two assessment years. The only question involved in these appeals is whether Rs. 1,48,700 for the assessment year 1982-83 and Rs. 1,63,527 for the assessment year 1983-84 can be included as individual wealth of the assessee, as contended by the Revenue or should those amounts be assessed as HUF wealth in the hands of the assessee, as contended by the assessee.
2. The admitted facts are the following. The assessee is an individual. The assessment years involved are 1982-83 and 1983- 84, for which the valuation dates were 13th January 1982 and 13th January 1983 respectively. The following genealogical tree is felt essential for a correct appreciation of the point in dispute in these appeals :
| Alagir Chettiar (died long prior to 1958) | ||||||||
| Muthulaxmi Ammal (wife) (died in June 1983) | ||||||||
| | | | | | | |||
| Ramasamy Chettiar (assessee) Manickkammal (died on 5th April 1977) | Subramania Chettiar | Dandapani Chettiar | ||||||
| | | | | | | | | |
| Anantha Subramanian | Sundaram Chettiar | Saraswathi (married daughter) | Manohari (married daughter) | |||||
Shri Alagiri Chettiar died long prior to 1958. In 1958 a partition of the major HUF took place between Smt. Muthulaxmi Ammal and her three sons. In the said partition Shri Ramaswamy Chettiar was allotted certain properties to his branch. In the said partition he acted as a representative of his branch. Subsequent to the said partition, on 11th September 1958 Anantha Subramanian, the first son of Shri Ramasamy Chettiar walked out of the minor HUF after accepting Rs. 1 lakh towards his share and after relinquishing all his rights in the minor HUF by executing a release deed dated 11th September 1958. So also Shri Sundaram Chettiar similarly separated himself from the minor HUF after accepting Rs. 99,000 and executing a registered release deed dated 1st September 1969. By the relevant valuation dates Smt. Saraswathi and Smt. Manohari were married and were living with their respective husbands. Smt. Manickkammal, wife of the assessee, unfortunately died on 5th April 1977.
3. The main contentious issues between the parties is that according to the assessee on the respective valuation dates relevant to the assessment years 1982-83 and 1983-84 the assessee constituted an HUF with his mother Smt. Muthulaxmi Ammal and as such the ancestral properties and the accretions thereon remained with the assessee having the character of HUF properties, whereas the contention of the Revenue is that Smt. Muthulaxmi Ammal was never a member of the smaller HUF, headed by the assessee, after a regular partition having taken place in the bigger HUF in 1958. After the death of the assessee's wife, Smt. Manickkammal, on 5th April 1977, the assessee became a sole surviving coparcener who had absolute right of disposition over every item of ancestral property remaining with him. In short the Revenue's contention is that after 5th April 1977 the smaller HUF came to an end and all the ancestral properties remaining with the assessee became his absolute properties and hence their value as on the two relevant valuation dates should be assessed as his individual wealth.
4. The WTO by his separate assessment orders dated 13th March 1987 for the assessment years 1982-83 and 1983-84 treated Rs. 1,48,700 and Rs. 1,63,527, which represent the values of the ancestral estate in the hands of the assessee as part of his individual wealth.
5. In appeal the AAC, Madurai, while disposing of the appeals for the assessment years 1982-83 and 1983-84 alongwith his similar appeal for the assessment years 1978-79, by his consolidated order dated 17th March 1988, allowed the appeals purporting to follow his appellate orders dated 18th April 1988 for the assessment years 1978-79 to
