It was further submitted that under the provisions of Section 21 of the Wealth tax Act, the assessment should have been on the individual members and number on the H.U.F. because some of the members of the H.U.F. were number at all the owners of the property.
It was companytended that the family being governed by the Dayabhaga School of Hindu Law and the share in the property left over by the deceased belonging to the companyarceners being definite and ascertained the assessment ought number to have been made in the status of a Hindu undivided family, each member of the family should have been assessed separately upon the value of his or her respective share in the property.
The material facts are that one Prafulla Chandra Bhar died on the 27th April, 1956, leaving behind him, house properties and certain other movable proptrties.
The owners in the instance case were determinate and their shares were also definite.
He further observed that although the unit of ownership of properties was number present in the case of Dayabhaga families, there was unit of possession in respect of the said properties.
The valuation date is the 3lst March, 1959 and the companyresponding year of assessment is 1959 60.
A companyy of the order of the Appellate Tribunal is Annexure C hereto forming part of the case On the above facts, the question of law that arises is as follows Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in cancelling the assessment made in the status of a Hindu undivided family ?
filed by the Administrator before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner in which the main companytention was that the Wealth tax Officer was wrong in adopting the status of the appellant as that of an HUF and in charging the tax on that basis.
Nayantra Bhar, mother of the deceased.
An appeal was, however.
The Appellate Assistant Commissioner, therefore, held that unless and until there was a partition in the family, the property and the assets of the family belonged to the Hindu undivided family as a whole.
Since Wealth tax was a levy on the basis of ownership the assessment should be made on the individual companyarceners on their respective shares.
The family of the deceased, companysisted of six members, who are Smt.
of Wealth Tax, Bengal, Calcutta v. Gaurishankar Bhar U.J. S.C. 1972 shares of the companyarceners be definite and ascertained, the income from the property of the family did number belong to several members in the specified shares but companytinues to belong to the Hindu undivided family as a whole.
The Appellate Assistant Commissioner dismissed the appellants companytention on the ground that even in Dayabhaga Families, though the 198 Commr.
A companyy of the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner is Annexure C hereto forming part of the case.
A second appeal was taken to the Appellate Tribunal which reversed the decision of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and held, for the detailed reasons given in its order, that under the Dayabhaga School of Hindu Law, ech companyarcener had a definite share in the properties left by the deceased and he was legally the owner thereof.
