Case Commentary: Commissioner of Wealth Tax v. Chander Sen AIR 1986
Background and Facts
The late Rangi Lal and his child, Chander Sen, were individuals from a Hindu unified family, as indicated by custom. They claimed some land and worked an organization under the name Khushi Ram Rangi Lal, which they acquired from their dad.
It was on October 10, 1961, that there was an incomplete division in the family, and the commercial was split between the dad and child, with the firm being carried on by an organization comprising of the two.
The “organization was being surveyed for personal expense as an enlisted association, and every one of the two accomplices was being evaluated independently for their particular portions of the benefits. Even after the separation, the family’s home property stayed in like manner proprietorship.
Rangilal died on July 17, 1966, leaving behind him his child, Chander Sen, and his grandkids, who were the children of Chander Sen at that point. Notwithstanding his significant other and mother having predeceased him, he had no further kids save Chander Sen. At the hour of his passing, he had a credit measure of Rs. 1,85,043 in his record in the organization’s books, which was credited to his bequest.”
Chander Sen, “who lived with his own young men in a joint family for the evaluation year 1966-67 (valuation date: October 3, 1965), presented a report of his net abundance for the appraisal year 1966-67 (valuation date: October 3, 1965).
The resources of the joint family, which were moved to Chander Sen by survivorship following the demise of Rangi Lal, just as the resources of the business, which were moved to Chander Sen following the passing of his dad, were remembered for the return.
It was resolved that the measure of Rs. 1,85,043 remaining to the credit of Rangi Lal was excluded from the net abundance of Chander Sen’s family (hereinafter alluded to as “the assessee-family”) since it reverted on Chander Sen in his individual limit and was not a property of the assessee-family.
The Income-charge Officer didn’t acknowledge this contention and established that the amount of Rs. 1,85,043 had a place with the assessee-family just as the assessee-person.”
A “measure of Rs. 23,330 was credited to the record of late Rangi Lal at the finish of the past financial year, which finished on October 22, 1966, and identified with the appraisal year 1967-68, by virtue of premium gathered on his credit balance during the past monetary year.
The measure of Rs. 23,330 was asserted as an allowance in the procedures under the Income-charge Act for the appraisal year 1967-68. In terest was said to have been because of Chander Sen in his individual limit and to have been an adequate allowance in the calculation of the assessee-business family’s pay.
Toward the year’s end, the credit sum in Rangi Lal’s record was at Rs. 1,82,742, which was moved to Chander Sen’s record because of the exchange. Additionally to the earlier year, it was contended that the credit sum in the record of Rangi Lal had a place with Chander Sen in his individual limit instead of to the assessee-family in the abundance charge evaluation for the appraisal year 1967-68.
The case for interest was denied by the Income-charge Officer who finished the evaluation because it was an installment made by Chander Sen to himself, instead of to the organization. Similarly, the Wealth-charge Officer incorporated a measure of Rs. 1,82,742 in the assessee-net family’s worth while surveying their abundance charge responsibility in the appraisal.
The assessee’s case was supported completely by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income-charge on bid. He kept up with that the cash for the sake of Rangi Lal reverted on Chander Sen in his individual limit and, accordingly, was not to be remembered for the assessee-net family of $1.5 million.
What’s more, he trained that a derivation of Rs. 23,330 by virtue of interest be allowed in the estimation of personal assessment obligation.
The Income-charge Appellate Tribunal heard three requests from the Income-charge Department, two of which were against evaluations under the Wealth-charge Act for the appraisal years 1966-67 and 1967-68, and one against an appraisal under the Income-charge Act for the evaluation year 1967-68.
The Income-charge Appellate Tribunal heard each of the three offers. The Tribunal has excused the division’s bids, however at the office’s solicitation, the Tribunal has presented the accompanying inquiry to this court for thought.”
Issues
Whether the council’s choice that the amounts of Rs. 185043 and Rs. 482742 didn’t comprise the resources of the assessee-Hindu unified Family was right considering current realities and conditions of the case is maintained.
Whether the financing cost of Rs 23.330 is a permitted allowance in the calculation of business profit for the assessee-joint family, in view of current realities and conditions of the case?
Acts Included
- “Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956”
- “Hindu Succession Act, 1956”
- “Wealth Tax Act”
- “Income Tax Act”
Judgement
In particular, the entirety being referred to addresses both the capital granted to Rangi Lal on incomplete division and the profit gathered by him all through his time as an investor of a restricted obligation organization.
This whole couldn’t be credited to any joint Hindu family while Rangi Lal was alive, and it had a place with Rangi Lal for his own sake, not to Chander Sen and his children, just like the situation when Chander Sen kicked the bucket.
At the point when Rangi Lal disappeared, the cash was given over to his child, Chander Sen, through legacy. At the point when a child acquires his dad’s autonomous and self-obtained property, the property assumes the personality of joint Hindu family property in his ownership as though it were claimed together by the individuals from his own family, as indicated by Hindu law.
Nonetheless, Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, which, it should be perceived, controls the current case, has changed this idea somely. As per that statement, the property of a male Hindu who bites the dust intestate passes first to his beneficiaries, who are the family members recorded in class I of the Schedule to the Indian Constitution.
It is generally acknowledged that the solitary beneficiary of the dead in class I was his child, Chander Sen, and that, subsequently, the expired’s property would pass to Chander Sen. Be that as it may, this isn’t the situation.
In Khudi Ram Laha v. Magistrate of Income-charge [1968] 671.T.R 364 this court verified that he held such property in his own ability and not as the karta of his own family, and this was affirmed by a judgment of a Division Bench of this court. All.
There are numerous similitudes between current realities of that case and current realities of the current case. Following the genius dreams of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, it was controlled by the Court that a child’s legacy of resources from his dad, whom he had isolated by parcel, couldn’t be surveyed as the pay of his Hindu unified family, which included himself and his children. There is no materialness of the instance of NV Narendranath v. Chief of Wealth-fax [1969) 74 L.T.R 190 S.C., which was depended on by the learned advice for the Department of Justice.
This case managed a coparcener who had a spouse and two minor little girls who had gotten a portion of the joint Hindu family property on segment. The Supreme Court held that such property, when it was in the ownership of the coparcener, had a place with the Hindu unified group of himself, his better half, and minor girls and couldn’t be surveyed as his individual property for motivations behind abundance charge.
In the question of Lala Narendra Lal Shamli v. Official of Income-charge, a Full Bench of this court arrived at a similar resolution as the Supreme Court. The idea set up in these cases would apply to Chander Sen’s bit of the property isolated with his dad in 1961, which was given to him at the hour of the split.
That segment would go to his Hindu unified family, which would incorporate his children and himself. There isn’t any conflict on this point. The assessee has considered the segment of Chander Sen got through parcel similar to the property of the assessee-family, as per the evaluation.
A particular property of Rangi Lal has come up for conversation for this situation, which was given to his child, Chander Gen, upon his demise. Considering the decision of this court in Khudi Ram Laha v Commissioner of Income-charge, it should be resolved that the property being referred to was the unmistakable property of Chander Son, where the assessee family had no proprietorship or monetary stake at all.
Accordingly, we answer the inquiry certifiably, for the assessee and against the Department of Finance and Administration.
Conclusion
This is a “combined reference identified with appraisal years 1966-67 and 1967-68, emerging out of activities under the Wealth-charge Act of the Hindu unified family comprising of Lala Chander Sen, the karta, and his four children.
Referring to the Income-Tax Act, the reference being referred to relates to the evaluation year 1968-69. In both of these cases, a legitimate matter of normal concern emerges.” Accordingly, they are being managed through a common judgment.
