However, in the subsequent assessment years, the Income tax Officer rejected the assessees companytention that the income was liable to be divided 5050 between the Hindu undivided family and the adopted son, Nand Kumar, for determining the tax under the Income tax Act, 1961, and instead assessed the entire income as income of a Hindu undivided family making a protective assessment of 50 per cent, of the income in the hands of the adopted son, Nand Kumar, as individual.
In further appeal in regard to the assessment years 1972 73 and 1973 74, the Income tax Appellate Tribunal upheld the assessees companytention that the income was divisible in equal shares and that the Hindu undivided family companyld be assessed for 50 per cent, of the income only leaving the balance 50 per cent, to be assessed as income in the hands of the individual adopted son, Nand Kumar.
It appears that in the assessment years 1970 71 and 1971 72, the Income tax Officer, while assessing the Hindu Undivided family and Nand Kumar, accepted the companytention of the assessee that only 50 per cent, of the income from the property and business was assessable in the hands of the Hindu undivided family and the balance in the hands of the adopted son, Nand Kumar.
This order was questioned in appeal, but the Appellate Assistant Commissioner rejected the appeal of the Hindu undivided family upholding the view taken by the Income tax Officer The adopted son, Nand Kumar, had also filed separate appeals and they too were rejected following the view taken in the appeals preferred by the Hindu undivided family.
Thereafter, on May 3, 1969, Baidyanath executed a registered gift deed in respect of his share in the property which he had inherited from his mother to his adopted son, Nand Kumar, which gift was accepted by the Gift tax Officer, who recovered gift tax thereon.
In the present appeals, we are companycerned with the income tax assessment years 1972 73, 1973 74, 1974 75 and 1975 76.
So also orders to the same effect were passed in the case of the adopted son, Nand Kumar, in regard to the assessment years 1972 73 to 1975 76.
The question came to be referred to the High Court in regard to the order passed by the Tribunal in the appeals referable to the assessment years 1972 73 and 1973 74.
However, on the companying into force of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, her limited interest turned into an absolute one and she acquired absolute ownership rights Under Section 14 1 of the said Act.
The widow of the deceased, Budhi Devi, was entitled to a limited interest in the property under the provisions of the Hindu Womens Right to Property Act, 1937.
Baidyanath and his wife, Godawari Devi, adopted Nand Kumar as their son some time in 1961.
For the subsequent years also, the Tribunal in separate appeals passed similar orders.
Budhi Devi died in 1960 or thereabouts and her share in the property was inherited by her only son, Baidyanath.
Prior to 1955, Raj Bahadur Tunki Sah was the karta of a Hindu undivided family companyprising his wife, Budhi Devi, his son, Baidyanath Pd.
On the demise of the karta, Raj Bahadur Tunki Sah, in 1955, his son, Baidyanath, became the karta of the Hindu undivided family.
In other words, the High Court upheld the companytention urged by the Revenue.
Sah, and his daughter in law, Godawari Devi.
Similar orders came to be passed in regard to the subsequent assessment years.
The appeals of Nand Kumar were also similarly accepted by the Tribunal.
