HUF status for wealth-tax depends on membership, not coparcenary rights; consistent past treatment defeated the Revenue's challenge.

A Hindu wife may be a member of the HUF without being a coparcener, and marriage does not give her a proprietary coparcenary interest capable of being relinquished to end HUF membership. On the facts, Smt. Ram Piyari remained the wife of Shri Ram Kalyan and continued as a member of the HUF, so the assessee was correctly treated as HUF (non-specified) for wealth-tax purposes. The deeming rule relating to partition was inapplicable because the family was not shown to have been assessed as an undivided family in the relevant legal sense, and the Revenue could not disturb the long-consistent departmental treatment of the assessee's status. Res judicata did not apply, but consistent past treatment supported rejection of the Revenue's challenge.

---

---

Issues: Whether, on the facts of the case, the assessee-HUF was to be assessed in the status of HUF (specified) or HUF (non-specified) for wealth-tax purposes, and whether the Revenue could disturb the long-accepted treatment of the assessee's status.

Analysis: A Hindu undivided family is distinct from a coparcenary. A Hindu wife may be a member of the HUF, but she is not a coparcener and does not acquire a share in coparcenary property merely by virtue of marriage. Her position in the family gives her rights of maintenance, but not a proprietary coparcenary interest capable of relinquishment so as to terminate her membership of the HUF. On the facts found, Smt. Ram Piyari continued to be the wife of Shri Ram Kalyan and therefore remained a member of the HUF. The deeming rule relating to partition under the income-tax law did not apply because the family had not been shown to have been hitherto assessed as an undivided family in the relevant legal sense. The earlier and later assessments also showed a settled departmental approach, and there was no sufficient basis to depart from that position in the years under consideration. The doctrine of res judicata was not attracted as such, but the consistent treatment of the assessee over the years was relevant in rejecting the Revenue's challenge.

Conclusion: The assessee was rightly treated as HUF (non-specified), and the Revenue's challenge to that status failed.

---