JUDGEMENT
J.C.Shah, J. -
(1.)The Revision Board of the State of U.P., acting under the U.P. Agricultural Income-Tax Act, 1948, referred to the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad the following question for opinion:-
"Whether on the facts of the case the Rajmata is a coparcener with in the meaning of Sec. 10, and if she is coparcener, whether her one-half share should be separately assessed to tax."
(2.)The High Court answered the first part of the question in the negative and declined to answer the second part. With special leave, the appellant, Raja Yaduvendra Dutt Dubey has appealed to this Court. A few facts that are necessary may be stated:-
One Raja Krishna Dutt Dube, father of the appellant, died in December, 1943, leaving him surviving his son and his wife who is called "Rajmata" in these proceedings. In proceedings for assessment of agricultural income tax, it was urged by the appellant that Raja Krishna Dutt Dube having died after the Hindu Women's Rights to Property Act, 1937, came into operation, the Rajmata as his widow became entitled by virtue of Sec. 3(2) of the Act to the same interest which her husband had in the property of the coparcenary subsisting between him and his son, and Rajmata was accordingly entitled to a half share in the income of the property of the family. But the assessing authority sought to tax the entire income of the property which apparently had remained undivided between the appellant and the Rajmata in the hands of the appellant. The appellant resisted that claim and contended that the Rajmata being a coparcener, he was entitled to only a half of the income of the property, and the other half of the income was not liable to be taxed in his hands. This contention was negatived by the assessing authority. The Commissioner of Agricultural Income Tax in appeal allowed the claim of the appellant, but the Board of Revision rejected the claim. The Board of Revision then referred the question set out hereinbefore for opinion of the High Court under Sec. 24 of the Act.
(3.)This Court has decided in Satrughan Isser Vs. Smt. Subujpari and other, AIR 1967 SC 272 that a widow of a coparcener who claims the same interest which her husband had in the property of the coparcenary by virtue of Sec. 3(2) of the Hindu Women's Right to Property Act, 1937, does not acquire the status of a coparcener. Mr. A.K. Sen, appearing for the appellant does not challenge that position. The first part of the question was, therefore, correctly answered by the High Court.
Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.