- (1.) THIS is a reference at the instance of the Revenue under S. 256(1) of the INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, (for short, " the Act ") to decide the follow ing question of law: " Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the property left by a Hindu governed by the Mitakshara school of Hindu law will devolve on his widow and not to the HUF of the only separated son and thus the income from the dividends would be assessable in the hands of Smt. Tej Kanwar and not in the hands of the assessee -HUF?"
(2.) THE question for decision in this reference is, whether the Tribunal correctly held that dividend income in the hands of Smt. Tej Kanwar, widow of Sohan Mal Golcha, was her absolute property and was, therefore, required to be assessed on that basis ? The Tribunal, placing reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Badri Prasad vs. Kanso Devi, AIR 1970 SC 1963, has held that by virtue of S. 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the dividend income so received by the widow during the relevant period was her absolute property and not that of the HUF. The material facts on which the question arises may now be stated.
(3.) SOHAN Mal Golcha initially was the Karta of an HUF consisting of his two sons and some other members. There was a partial partition as a result of which Sohan Mal Golcha separated from his sons. Thereafter, Sohan Mal Golcha constituted an HUF comprising of himself, his wife and unmarried daughter, his sons having already separated. The said Sohan Mal Golcha held certain shares as an individual and this is how dividend income was assessed as his individual income after partial partition. After the death of Sohan Mal Golcha, his shares became the property of his widow alone.;