Madhya Pradesh H.C : Whether the conclusion of the Tribunal that the property inherited as individual was not thrown into common stock of the family before 31st Dec., 1969, and is taxable as separate property and not as of HUF is against the weight of the evidential material and is thus perverse and vitiated and results in levy of tax in violation of Art. 265 of the Constitution of India ?

High Court Of Madhya Pradesh : Indore Bench

Prabhashchandra Jha vs. Commissioner Of Wealth Tax

Section WT 2(m), WT 3

Asst. Year 1980-81, 1981-82, 1982-83, 1983-84

A.M. Sapre & Ashok Kumar Tiwari, JJ.

IT Ref. No. 40 of 1996

28th February, 2005

Counsel Appeared : Milind Phadke, for the Petitioner : R.L. Jain with Ms. V. Mandlik, for the Respondent

ORDER

By the court :

This is a reference made at the instance of assessee by the Tribunal under s. 256(1) of the IT Act in RA Nos. 97 to 11/Ind/1987 which arises out of WTA Nos. 129 to 133/Ind/1987 to answer following question of law said to arise out of the aforementioned order of the Tribunal :

“Whether the conclusion of the Tribunal that the property inherited as individual was not thrown into common stock of the family before 31st Dec., 1969, and is taxable as separate property and not as of HUF is against the weight of the evidential material and is thus perverse and vitiated and results in levy of tax in violation of Art. 265 of the Constitution of India ?”

Heard Shri Milind Phadke, learned counsel for assessee, and Shri R.L. Jain, learned senior counsel with Ms. V. Mandlik, learned counsel for Revenue. At the outset, both the learned counsel for assessee as also for Revenue brought to our notice a decision rendered by Supreme Court of India in the case of CIT vs. P.L. Karuppan Chettiar (1993) 109 CTR (SC) 317 : (1992) 197 ITR 646 (SC). According to learned counsel, the question referred to this Court fell for consideration before their Lordships of Supreme Court in the case of P.L. Karuppan Chettiar (supra) and the same was answered in favour of Revenue and against assessee. Since the question involved in this reference and the one that fell for consideration before the Supreme Court in P.L. Karuppan Chettiar (supra) is identical in nature, it is not necessary for us to take note of any facts in detail for examining the question which stood answered by the apex Court thereby settling the controversy so far as legal debate is concerned. This Court as also all the Courts in the country including the taxing authorities are required to simply follow the law laid down by the Supreme Court in letter and spirit keeping in view the mandate of the Art. 141 of the Constitution of India and give effect to it in the case of assessee as a consequential one. Accordingly and in view of the aforesaid and in the light of the law laid down by their Lordships of Supreme Court in the case of P.L. Karuppan Chettiar (supra), we answer the question referred to us as mentioned above against assessee and in favour of the Revenue i.e., CIT. No costs.

[Citation : 291 ITR 335]

Scroll to Top
Malcare WordPress Security