JAWAHAR LAL GUPTA, J. - (1.) THE cleavage of judicial opinion regarding the effect of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, on the old customary rules of 'primogeniture' and 'impartible estates' has led to prevarication in the decisions under the IT/WT Acts. As a result, the assessee as well as the Revenue are aggrieved by the orders relating to the different assessment years. Thus, these 11 cases.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the parties have referred to the facts as emerging from the record of WT Ref. Nos. 34 to 38 of 1982. By its composite order of 30th March, 1982, the Tribunal has referred the following question for the opinion of this Court : "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee was to be assessed as an individual in respect of the impartible estate on the ground that he was a holder of such an impartible estate in the assessment years under consideration?" The facts may be briefly noticed. Guru Amarjit Singh is the assessee. He was the holder of an impartible estate for the last about 40 years which was 'much before the passing of the Hindu Succession Act.' Upto the asst. year 1969 70, the estate was being assessed as belonging to the HUF. However, for the five assessment years viz., 1970 71 and 1972 73 to 1975 76, the holder of the estate was assessed as an individual. The WTO had taken the view that the assessee being the holder of an "impartible estate, the value of the estate has to be assessed in his hands in the status of an individual as per provisions of S. 4(6) of the WT Act, 1957." The contention of the assessee that with the passing of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the concept of 'impartible estate' had become obsolete was rejected. The value of the estate was, thus, included in the wealth of the assessee. Copies of the five orders passed by the WTO are at Annexures 'A' to A 4. The assessee appealed. It was contended that in view of the provisions of ss. 4 and 5 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the orders passed by the WTO could not be sustained. However, the CWT(A) held that "although the impartible estate was a joint Hindu property, during the life of the holder of the impartible estate, it would be holder's absolute property". Thus, the appeals were dismissed. Copies of the five orders are at Annexures 'B' to 'B 4'. The assessee challenged the orders before the Tribunal. After consideration of the matter, the Tribunal held that the property belongs to the "joint family but in the circumstances of the case, the holder has to be assessed in his capacity as an individual." Thus, the appeals were dismissed. The assessee filed a petition under S. 27(1) of the WT Act, 1957. It was accepted. Hence, these five references. In the connected cases, the Revenue is the petitioner.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the parties have been heard.;