TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1978 (5) TMI 16
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f Nepal between 1945 and 1948. He came over to India on the 27th February, 1948, and resigned his office on the 26th April, 1948. The assessee belongs to a family of Hindus, known as Ranas, who are Rajputs by caste and had migrated from India to Nepal. They were governed originally by the Mitakshara School of Hindu Law which they carried with them to Nepal. In course of time they became part of the population of Nepal. The laws of Nepal which developed in course of time came to be known as the Mulki Ain of Nepal and were a modified form of the original Hindu law. Traditionally, the eldest member of the Rana families used to become the Prime Minister and was called Maharaja. On the 28th November, 1947, a Lal Mohar (literally translated as the " Red Seal ") was granted by the King of Nepal in favour of the Prime Minister. The relevant portion of the said document is as follows : " That in distributing your family properties consisting of cash and kind, Birta-land in Torai or Hills, house and lands within the valley, you are hereby granted the sole authority of using your own choice irrespective of the law of partition prevalent in the country. If any member of the family ins....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....811 3. Balance in the Chartered Bank Ltd., 4, Netaji Subhas Road, Calcutta, in the joint name of the assessee and his wife, Maharani Kamala Devi 6,62,547 4. Loan to Gladstone Lyall Ltd. 1,00,000 5. Cash in hand 20,000 ----------------- 18,41,952 ----------------- In the assessment year 1957-58, the relevant valuation date being the 31st March, 1957, the assessee filed two wealth-tax returns on the 11th March, 1958. In the first return, he disclosed his net wealth in the status of an individual. In the second return, a net wealth of Rs. 17,69,952 was disclosed as belonging to his HUF. Revised returns were subsequently filed for the individual as also for the HUF. The wealth of the family was revised to Rs. 17,91,952. In the wealth-tax assessment of the assessee in his status of " individual " a sum of Rs. 18,41,952 shown as belonging to the HUF was held by the WTO to be the personal wealth of the assessee and added to his individual wealth and assessed as such. At the assessment proceedings, the assessee wanted time to produce expert evidence to prove that the said properties and assets belonged to the joint family under the Nepalese law but time as ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....operty the father is bound to make partition. Because the language of section 37 of the Law of Partition is mandatory. 9. Whether wife has claim in partition? Answer : Yes, she has the same status according to Nepalese law as that of a son. 10. Has the unmarried daughter claim in partition ? Answer : She is entitled to marriage expenses according to the family status and position. In some cases, she is entitled to a share in partition... 13. From reading the Lal Mohar, dated 80th Kartik 2003, executed by his Majesty the King in favour of Maharaja Padma Shamsher, how can you say that the privilege can be given to every person ? Answer : The privilege of extended power in partitioning the properties was used to be given to the Rana Prime Ministers only and during their regime and not to others. But any other privilege, such as granting of rent-free land, is given through the medium of Lal Mohar. 14. Could Maharaja Padma Shamsher deprive any of his coparceners in getting share in the partition by virtue of the Lal Mohar dated 30th Kartik, 2003 Sambat, executed in his favour ? Answer : From reading the Lal Mohar it is evident that nowhere it is state....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... otherwise not '. " On the basis of the evidence on Nepalese law and the opinion of the learned advocate, the Tribunal held, inter alia, as follows : (a) The Lal Mohar issued by the King of Nepal in favour of the assessee had only given the assessee power to distribute the assets as between different coparceners according to the assessee's own discretion. (b) The properties, however, actually belonged to the Hindu undivided family and the assessee was not made the full and arbitrary owner thereof by the said Lal Mohar. (c) No power was conferred upon the assessee to alienate the family properties. (d) The assessee had made the two partitions by the said two Khadga Nishanas before he migrated to India and these divisions were made long before the Wealth-tax Act was promulgated in India. (e) It could not be said that the divisions of the property were contrived with the intention of escaping taxation. (f) The entire amount of Rs. 18,41,952 represented the joint family assets. (g) There had been subsequently a final division in respect of even these joint assets. (h) On the 14th April, 1957, Narendra Shamsher Jung Bahadur Rana acknowledged the final division....