1980 (3) TMI 46 - HC - Wealth-tax

Court rules shares in minors' names belong to mother, included in net wealth. Loan transactions invalid.

Commissioner Of Wealth-Tax, Bombay City II Versus Mrs. PG. Rao

The court held that the shares purchased by the assessee in the names of her minor sons should be included in her net wealth as there was no valid ... Net Wealth, Wealth Tax Issues Involved:1. Whether the value of the shares purchased by the assessee in the names of her minor sons could be included in her net wealth under the Wealth-tax Act.2. The validity of the alleged loan transactions between the assessee and her minor sons.3. The legal capacity of the assessee to act as the natural guardian of her minor sons.4. The applicability of section 4(1)(a)(ii) of the Wealth-tax Act to the transactions in question.Detailed Analysis:1. Inclusion of Shares in Net Wealth:The primary issue was whether the value of the shares purchased by the assessee in the names of her minor sons could be included in her net wealth. The Tribunal initially held that the shares and the accounts in question did not belong to the assessee but to her minor sons, thus excluding them from her net wealth. However, upon review, the court found that there was no valid transfer of wealth to the minors, as the transactions were not legally recognized. Consequently, the shares and accounts were deemed to belong to the assessee and were included in her net wealth.2. Validity of Loan Transactions:The assessee claimed to have lent money to her minor sons to purchase shares, charging them interest, and subsequently recovering the principal amount. The Tribunal initially accepted this claim, noting that there was nothing to prevent a natural guardian from entering into such transactions. However, the court found that the transactions were not valid as the assessee lacked the legal capacity to act as the guardian of her minor sons. Therefore, the purported loans were invalid, and the funds remained the property of the assessee.3. Legal Capacity as Natural Guardian:The court emphasized that under section 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, the natural guardian of a Hindu minor is the father, and after him, the mother. Since the father was alive, the mother (assessee) did not have the legal capacity to act as the guardian for financial transactions. The Tribunal's assumption that the assessee could act as the natural guardian was erroneous, leading to the conclusion that the transactions were invalid and the assets remained with the assessee.4. Applicability of Section 4(1)(a)(ii):Section 4(1)(a)(ii) of the Wealth-tax Act pertains to the inclusion of certain assets in the net wealth of an individual if transferred without adequate consideration. The Tribunal initially found that the transactions were for adequate consideration and thus did not attract this section. However, the court concluded that since there was no valid transfer in the first place, the question of adequate consideration under section 4(1)(a)(ii) did not arise. The assets were rightfully included in the assessee's net wealth.Conclusion:The court concluded that the transactions purportedly creating loans to the minor sons were invalid due to the lack of legal capacity of the assessee to act as the guardian. Consequently, the shares and funds remained the property of the assessee and were included in her net wealth. The question referred was answered in the negative, in favor of the revenue.