TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1985 (10) TMI 25
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e between Jagdish Puri and Shankar Puri regarding distribution of Hindu undivided family properties. A suit for partition of the immovable properties was filed in the court of the Additional District Judge No. 2, Jodhpur, who by his judgment dated October 4, 1973, held that half of the entire properties belonged to Jagdish Puri and the other half to Shanker Puri. It may be stated that Jagdish Puri was appointed as receiver of all the 13 properties of the bigger Hindu undivided family vis-a-vis the properties coming to his share as per the judgment of the Additional District Judge. The judgment passed by the Additional District Judge on October 4, 1973, was assailed in the High Court. The Wealth-tax Officer issued notices under section 17 of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... vis-a-vis the receiver for the properties of the bigger HUF appointed by the Additional District Judge in a partition suit which matter is subjudice before the Rajasthan High Court ? " The Tribunal declined to refer the aforesaid question and dismissed the reference applications. Being dissatisfied, the Commissioner of Wealth-tax, Jodhpur, has filed these applications under section 27(3) of the Act on the ground that the decision of the Tribunal dated November 14, 1983, does give rise to a question of law and that the order rejecting the reference applications is erroneous. We have heard Mr. B. R. Arora for the Revenue and Mr. Dinesh Maheshwari for the assessee, who has appeared in pursuance of the notice that was issued by this court. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rt which finds mention in the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner as well as in the order of the Tribunal : "In my view notices be issued to Shri Jagdish Puri, who is having a lion's share, i.e., half in the whole property ; others share is nominal and they are not liable to wealth-tax." The Wealth-tax Officer concurred with the view of the Inspector by putting the word "yes" on the margin of the report. On the basis of this "reason", the notices were issued in the name of Shri Jagdish Puri HUF under section 17 of the Act. The irresistible conclusion from these facts, to our mind, is that in the absence of any variation or modification of the aforesaid report of the Inspector by the Wealth-tax Officer, he accepted and agreed wit....