TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1990 (8) TMI 181
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... was the karta of the joint family died on 13-7-1978, leaving him surviving his wife (Anita Baveja), a minor son (Nikhil), and a minor daughter (Saloni). The joint family and mother (Prabha Baveja) held immovable properties, jewellery, shares of companies, etc. Wealth-tax returns were filed declaring the value of the assets and the details are as hereunder : Assessment year Valuation Date Value returned 1980-81 31-3-1980 Rs. 3,74,800 1981-82 31-3-1981 Rs. 3,74,800 1982-83 31-3-1982 Rs. 3,74,800 1983-84 31-3-1983 Rs. 3,74,800 1984-85 31-3-1984 Rs. 3,74,800 1985-86 31-3-1985 Rs. 3,07,500 1986-87 31-3-1986 Rs. 2,27,084 The Wealth-tax Officer did not accept the returned valuation. 3. Before the assessing officer, t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to adopt the value as determined by them. On shares, it was held that their value was includible in these assessments. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the order of the Wealth Tax Officer excluding the value of 1/8th share of the mother Prabha Baveja. 7. The assessee is on further appeal to the Tribunal. Before us, Shri Parthasarathy, the learned counsel for the assessee, addressed on three points which we will deal with now. 8. With regard to valuation, it was stated that a reference under section 16A can only be made by the Wealth Tax Officer and that the Commissioner (Appeals) had no power to give a direction in this regard. In the case of one Prem Baveja [WT Appeal No. 164 (Bang.) of 1987] a similar thing had happened and the Tri....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... aspects including the point whether a reference under section 16A is warranted. With this observation, we dispose of the first ground. 9. The second ground relates to inclusion of the value of the shares of a company. The mother, Prabha Baveja, had filed a suit in Civil Court for partition and separate possession of her share in the family properties. The parties reported a compromise and accordingly a decree was passed. In the compromise, the shares were treated as belonging to the family. It must, in the circumstances, be held that the shares belong to the HUF and the value thereof is includible in these HUF assessments. 10. The last ground has reference to exclusion of value of 1/8th share from the net wealth of the HUF. The Wealt....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ct is made bearing in mind the rule enunciated in Gurupad Khandappa Magdum's case then the mother Prabha Baveja will have to be allotted 1/3rd share and Prithvi Baveja would also have got 1/3rd. It is this 1/3rd share that passed on to all the Class I heirs. Thus the mother will not only get a share in the interest of the deceased son, but, in addition, a share received or must be deemed to have been received in the notional partition. In the present case, it would be 1/3rd plus 1/12th = 5/12th. What is includible in these assessments is the extent of the property that still remains with the HUF after the death of the coparcener Prithvi Baveja. The wife of Prithvi Baveja would also inherit a share in the interest of her deceased husband and....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... male member under section 6 of the Act but she cannot be treated as having ceased to be a member of the family without her volition as otherwise it will lead to strange results which could not have been in the contemplation of Parliament when it enacted that provision and which might also not be in the interest of such female heirs." The Supreme Court was concerned with the question whether a female heir who, inherited a share can be deemed to have divided and their Lordships were concerned with the meaning of "Person" and "Family" for the purpose of section 6 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961. Though a Class I female heir is not separated from the joint family, it is, however, certain that what she i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ded family at the date of death of the coparcener, the heirs have a defined share, namely, the share which the deceased coparcener whom they have succeeded would have had, if a partition had taken place immediately before his death and the remaining share belongs to the Hindu undivided family. Now, once this position is reached, it is clear that the Hindu undivided family and the heirs hold these properties as tenants-in-common .............. The properties are thus clearly held by the Hindu undivided family and the heirs as tenants-in-common. This conclusion is considerably fortified by section 19 which provides that if two or more heirs succeed together to the property of an intestate which would include the interest of a deceased coparce....