Banerjee, J. - (1.) THIS is a reference under Sec. 27(1) of the Wealth -tax Act, 1957.
(2.) THE assessment year is 1959 -60, the corresponding valuation date being March, 31, 1959.
(3.) THE reference has been made in the circumstances hereinafter stated in brief. One Prafulla Chandra Bhar, a Hindu governed by Dayabhaga school of law, died intestate on April 27, 1956. His mother, widow, three sons and one daughter survived him. Since the death had taken place before the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, came into operation, he was succeeded by his widow, Sm. Radha Rani Bhar, and his three sons, namely, Uma Sankar, estate. Gouri Sankar, a son of the deceased, took out letters of administration and filed the wealth -tax return, and his capacity as the administrator to the estate of the deceased, therein describing the status of the assessee as a Hindu undivided family. The Wealth -tax Officer also treated the status of the assessee as a Hindu undivided family. He took the net value of the assets at Rs. 8,39,125 and calculated the tax payable thereon at Rs. 4,391.25 P. Gouri Sankar, as the administrator to the estate, filed an appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and contended : (1) that the Wealth -tax Officer was wrong in proceeding on the basis that the assessee was a Hindu undivided family and in charging tax on that basis : (2) that the family being governed by the Dayabhaga school of law and the share of the coparceners in the properties left by the deceased being definite and ascertained, the assessment should not have been made in their status as a Hindu undivided family and each members of the family should have been assessed separately upon the value of his or her respective share in the inherited property : (3) that under the provisions of Sec. 21 of the Wealth -tax Act, the assessment should have been made on the individual members and not on the Hindu undivided family, because some of the members of the family were not at all owners of the property. The objections on the aforesaid grounds, we need notice, were taken up, for the first time, before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner overruled the contentions, being of the opinion that even in a Dayabhaga family, notwithstanding the fact that the shares of the co -parceners were definite and ascertained, the income from the property of the family did not belong to the several members in specified shares but continued to belong to the Hindu undivided family as a whole. He expressed the further opinion that, unless and until there was a partition in the family, the property and assets of the family belongs to the Hindu undivided family.;