TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1989 (6) TMI 52
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d to a joint Hindu family ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that in view of the Kerala Joint Hindu Family System (Abolition) Act, 1975, only the presumptive share of the assessee can be included in computing his net wealth under the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 ?" The respondent is an assessee to wealth-tax. We are concerned with the assessment years 1977-78 and 1978-79. The respective valuation dates are March 31, 1977, and March 31, 1978. The main objection to the assessments is regarding the status and the inclusion of the entire property in the wealth-tax assessments. The Wealth-tax Officer assessed the respondent as an individual. He rejected the plea of the assesse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ded family was his wife. It is stated that the assessee is a Jain by religion. So, it cannot be disputed that Hindu law applies to him. The effect of section 4 of the Act 30 of 1976 is to bring an end to the Hindu undivided family. Section 4 of the Act says that all members of a Hindu undivided family governed by the Mitakshara law holding any coparcenary property shall be deemed to hold it as tenants-in-common as if a partition had taken place among all the members of that Hindu undivided family. Before the Appellate Tribunal, the Revenue contended that even if there was a partition in the Hindu undivided family, the assessee's wife was not entitled either to claim partition or to a share on partition and so by the extinction of the joint ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sumptive share of the assessee in the properties can be included in the wealth-tax assessments. It was argued that the assessee is a Hindu, governed by the Hindu Mitakshara law in South India and in South India the practice of allotting a share to females on partition had become obsolete long ago. The decision relied on by the Appellate Tribunal will not apply to the instant case, Saraswathi Ammal v. Anantha Shenai [1966] AIR 1966 Ker 66 ; [1965] KLT 141. It related to the right of a Hindu female member of a joint family in the erstwhile Cochin State wherein the Hindu law applicable was different. Counsel for the assessee, Mr. Davis, argued that the effect of the Kerala Joint Hindu Family System (Abolition) Act, 1975, is to make a statutory....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s of the Hindu undivided family regarding the joint family properties had taken place. Only if the assessee's wife is entitled to claim a partition in the properties or she is entitled to a share on partition of the joint family properties, can it be stated that she will hold such properties which will be allotted to her on partition as tenants-in-common. The question is whether the assessee's wife is entitled to demand partition or to a share on partition of the joint family properties ? The question posed is not free from difficulty. That will depend upon the personal law by which the assessee is governed. Jains are governed by Hindu law, as modified by custom. Only if, by the law applicable to the particular school of Hindu Mitakshara....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., as per the Kerala Act 30 of 1976, she became entitled to a share in the estate in lieu of her right to maintenance. The Appellate Tribunal was in error in holding that the assessee's wife is entitled to a share in the estate in lieu of her right to maintenance. The error was caused because the Tribunal did not apply the proper law applicable to the parties and wrongly assumed that the decision in Saraswathi Ammal's case, AIR 1966 Ker 66; [1965] KLT 141, will apply to the facts of this case. Therefore, we hold that the Appellate Tribunal was wrong in affirming the decision of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and in holding that only the presumptive share of the assessee in the properties can be assessed in his hands. The matter requ....