1981 (12) TMI 16

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....is death? " The reference earlier came up for hearing before a Division Bench of this court which directed it to be placed before a Full Bench. The case relates to the assessment of estate duty on the estate passing on the death of Surajmal who died on 21st June, 1971. To begin with, the deceased was a member of an HUF carrying on business in the name of M/s. Ramchandra Surajmal. The family then consisted of the deceased, his wife, Smt. Badamibai, Ramratan, the son of the deceased's brother and Ramratan's mother, Smt. Narayanibai. In 1955 there was a partial partition of the business assets of the said HUF. In that partition the deceased got a half share and the other half went to Ramratan and his mother. After partial partition, a fi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Controller. The ownership in the property obtained by the deceased on partition was not shared by his wife although the deceased and his wife constituted an HUF. The deceased had no son. There was thus no coparcener in his family excepting himself. The deceased was the sole coparcener in his family. Speaking generally, female members in an HUF have no ownership in the property belonging to the family. The ownership of such a property is held by a smaller body which is called the coparcenary and in case there is only one coparcener, it is he alone who owns the entire property. It is true that for purposes of assessment of income-tax, the status of the deceased was that of an HUF as he and his wife constituted a family but different cons....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....h cases passes under s. 5 read with s. 6. The view that we have taken is fully supported by the decision of the Allahabad High Court in CED v. Smt. Kalawati Devi [1980] 125 ITR 762 (All), with which we entirely agree. In CED v. Rani Baku [1983] 142 ITR 843 (MP) [FB], which was recently decided by us, the facts were that there was a partition between the deceased and his three sons and a grandson of a pre-deceased son. In that partition the deceased's wife was not allotted any share. The partition took place after the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. It was held by us that although no share was allotted to the wife, in view of the change brought about by s. 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1/6th share, to which the wife was entitled, became her....