Delhi High Court
Commissioner Of Wealth-Tax vs Dr. A.P. Mittra on 18 February, 1987
Equivalent citations: 1987 168 ITR 570 Delhi
Bench: H Goel, S Ranganathan
JUDGMENT
1. These are applications under section 27(3) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, at the instance of the Commissioner of Wealth-tax. They arise in similar circumstances in the case of the same assessed in the case of the same assessed in relation to the assessment years 1971-72 to 1978-79. The controversy between the parties is as to whether certain properties are all includible in the assessment of wealth-tax of Dr. A. P. Mittra in the above assessment years or whether these properties should be assessed in the hands of Dr. Mittra, his wife and two sons in their respective shares said to have been allotted to them under a partition decree by a court in December, 1970.
2. It is not necessary to refer to the details of the various orders. On the one hand, the claim of the Department is that since Dr. Mittra is a Hindu governed by the Dayabhaga school of law, there can be no assessment on him in the capacity of a joint family, that the so-called partition effected between him and his sons has no legal effect and that all the properties have to be included in the wealth-tax assessments of Dr. Mittra. On the other hand, on behalf of the assessed, it is contended that some of the properties were inherited by Dr. Mittra from his father; that the properties were thereafter assessed in the hands of the joint family consisting of Dr. Mittra and his brothers; that there was a partition in the joint family in which certain properties were allotted to Dr. Mittra towards his share in the joint family property; that these properties and subsequent properties acquired by Dr. Mittra were being treated by him as properties belonging to the joint family consisting of himself, his wife and two sons and that the position till the assessment year 1970-71 was that these properties were included in the wealth-tax assessments of Dr. Mittra in the status of a joint family. It is submitted that in view of the past conduct of the parties as well as the Department and also in view of the fact that there was a partition decree between Dr. Mittra, his wife and his two sons allotting various properties by metes and bounds to the various members of the family, the Department can no longer claim that all the properties belong to Dr. Mittra alone and not to Dr. Mittra as well as his wife and two sons in their individual capacity as respectively returned by them. Reference is also made to the income-tax assessments.
3. We do not consider it necessary to touch upon any of these issues as, in our opinion, the decision of the Tribunal does give rise to interesting and difficult questions regarding the incidents of properties under the Dayabahga school of law as well as the scope of partitions under the said school and also as to the effect of the partition decree made in 1970. We, therefore, direct the Tribunal to state a case and refer the following question of law for the decision of this court :
"Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in directing the exclusion from the net wealth of the assessed, the value of the properties allotted to the wife and the two sons of Dr. Mittra by the partition decree of 1970 ?"
4. The Tribunal will state a case and refer the above question of law for the decision of this court. We may make it clear that it will be open to both the parties at the hearing to take up all aspects relevant to decide the above question including the past conduct of the Department as well as the effect of past assessments made in the case. The applications stand disposed of. No order as to costs.
