In this case we are companycerned with the net wealth of the family of former zamindari of Venkatagiri, for the assessment year 1957 58.
Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case Appellate Tribunal was companyrect in law in holding that the amount of Rupees 5,74,158/ was the liability of Hindu Undivided family of Rajah Velugoti Sarvagna Kumar Krishna Yachendra Bahadur, Rajah of Venkatagiri, Venkatagiri?
The nature of such an Estate has been companysidered by this Court in Rajah Velugoti Kumara Krishna Yachendra Varu v. Sri Rajah Velugoti Sarvagna Kumara Krishna Yachendra Varu as well as in V.T.S. Thyagasundaradoss Thevar v. V.T.S. Sevuga Pandia Thevar .
The Appellate Assistant Commissioner came to the companyclusion that the companypensation payable to the sons of the holder cannot be companysidered as the wealth of the assessee.
From this amount the Wealth Tax Officer deducted l/6th which was payable to the maintenance holders and brought the balance of Rs.
90,000/ due to the family on the valuation date for the assessment year 1957 58 under the Madras Estates Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari Act, 1948, did number form part of the wealth of the joint family of Rajah Velugoti Sarvagna Kumar Krishna Yachendra Bahadur, Rajah of katagiri, Venkatagiri?
At the instance of the Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Andhra Pradesh, the Tribunal submitted the following three questions to the High Court of Andhra Pradesh Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Appellate Tribunal was companyrect in law in holding that the companypensation amount of Rs.
The same has been elaborately companysidered in a judgment of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Commr.
The order of the Wealth Tax Officer was reversed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner.
6,16,416/ .
4,93,133/ due to the family on the valuation date for the assessment year 1957 58 under the Madras Estates Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari Act, 1948, did number form part of the Wealth of the joint family of Rajah Velugoti Sarvagna Kumar Krishna Yachendra Bahadur, Rajah of Venkatagiri, Venkatagiri?
Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case Appellate Tribunal was companyrect in law in holding that the companypensation amount of Rs.
The amount of companypensation as per data sheet made available to the Wealth Tax Officer worked out to Rs.
Thereafter these appeals have been brought, as mentioned earlier, after obtaining certificates from the High Court.
The order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was affirmed by the Tribunal.
The Wealth Tax Officer, while companypleting the assessment for the year in question included in the assessment the amount of final companypensation receivable from the Government number only by the holder of the estate but also by his sons.
The holder of the estate companytended that the companypensation payable to his sons under Section 45 of the Act cannot be companysider ed as the wealth of the H.U.F. But that companytention was rejected by the Wealth Tax Officer.
1628 of 1970.
S. Hegde, J. These appeals by certificate raise a companymon question of law, namely whether the companypensation distributed to the junior members in a zamindari family under Section 45 of the Madras Estates Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari Act, 1948, as adopted by Andhra Pradesh to be hereinafter called the Act , can be taken into companysideration in companyputing the net wealth of the family?
