1936 (12) TMI 29 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the income from property, business, and other sources (quarries and fisheries) should be taxed as income of an individual or as the income of a Hindu undivided family (HUF).

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Income from Property:
The primary question is whether the income from the impartible estate, specifically Rs. 8,434 from property, should be taxed as that of an individual or as a Hindu undivided family. The court examined the nature of impartible estates and concluded that such estates, though ancestral, are treated with the incidents of self-acquired and separate property. The income derived from such estates is considered the absolute property of the holder, not an accretion to the estate. Citing the Privy Council's decision in Shibaprasad Singh v. Prayag Kumari Debee, the court emphasized that the income of an impartible estate does not retain the character of joint family property. Therefore, the income from the property should be taxed as that of an individual.

2. Income from Business:
The issue revolves around Rs. 998 from the money-lending business. The court reiterated the principles established in previous judgments, such as Jagadamba Kumari v. Wazir Narain Singh, which clarified that the income from an impartible estate, including business income, is the sole property of the holder. The court held that the income from the business should be assessed as the individual income of the Raja, not as the income of the joint family.

3. Income from Other Sources (Quarries and Fisheries):
The court examined Rs. 3,755 from other sources, including quarries and fisheries. It referred to the decision in Sri Sri Raja Shiva Prasad Singh v. The Crown, where it was held that the income of an impartible estate is the sole property of the holder for the time being. The court concluded that this income should also be treated as individual income for tax purposes.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the income from the impartible estate, including property, business, and other sources, is the absolute property of the holder and should be taxed as individual income. The assessee's contention that the income should be treated as that of a Hindu undivided family was rejected. The court held that the assessee was rightly assessed as an individual and ordered the assessee to pay Rs. 250 costs to the Commissioner of Income Tax. The reference was answered accordingly.