2004 (2) TMI 14 - HC - Income Tax

Court rules deceased's wife entitled to share in property, reopening assessment unjustified.

The court held that the reopening of the assessment by the Assistant Controller of Estate Duty was not justified. The court found that the deceased's wife ... Estate of a person who died - Reopening of assessment – even if the accountable person, i.e., the wife may not have any right to demand partition of the Hindu undivided family property, if the partition had taken place during the lifetime of the deceased, the wife would have been entitled to a share in the Hindu undivided family property. The provisions of section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act also provide that where a male member of a Hindu undivided family dies, a notional partition takes place just before his death and, therefore, the wife of the deceased would notionally get her share in the Hindu undivided family property. Since the original order of assessment accordingly accepted that the wife had half a share and that only the deceased's half share passed on his death, it cannot be said that the case called for any reassessment – reopening of assessment is not justified Issues:Reopening of assessment based on jurisdictional High Court decision.Analysis:The case involved a reference at the instance of the Revenue regarding the reopening of an assessment by the Assistant Controller of Estate Duty. The issue was whether the reopening was justified based on the deceased being the sole surviving coparcener and having the power to dispose of the property. The Appellate Tribunal initially upheld the reopening but later held that it was not justified due to the lack of a binding decision from the Gujarat High Court. The Revenue argued that the real controversy was the justification of reopening, not the jurisdictional oversight. The court reframed the question to focus on the justification of the reopening. The Revenue contended that the deceased had the full disposing capacity, justifying the reopening. Reference was made to the decision in Smt. Nita Taneja v. Asst. CED [1995] 211 ITR 462, which was deemed similar to the present case.The court compared the facts with the apex court case and concluded that the situation was akin to the one before the Supreme Court. It was noted that the Estate Duty Act had been repealed, and the wife would have been entitled to a share in the Hindu undivided family property. The court found that the original assessment had acknowledged the wife's half share and that only the deceased's half share passed on his death, indicating no need for reassessment. Thus, the court held that the reopening was not justified based on the circumstances of the case, rendering the consideration of the decision of another High Court or Tribunal unnecessary. The question was answered in favor of the accountable person and against the Revenue, disposing of the reference accordingly.