9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether there was in existence an undivided Hindu family consisting of the assessee and his son from April 1, 1952, to December 11, 1952. 2. Whether the assessment of the income of the assessee, other than his salary, in the hands of the assessee as an individual and not as a Hindu undivided family till December 11, 1952, for the assessment year 1953-54 is valid. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Existence of an Undivided Hindu Family The primary issue for consideration was whether a Hindu undivided family (HUF) existed from April 1, 1952, given that the assessee's son was born on December 11, 1952. The assessee contended that under Hindu law, the membership of a coparcenary in a joint family commences from the date of conception by the mother. Hence, the son should be deemed to have been in existence since the beginning of the year of account, and the assessee should not be assessed as an individual for any part of that year. The court analyzed various precedents and legal principles, including the rule that "a child in embryo is to be considered as a person in existence for certain purposes" (Blackstone's Commentary). The court noted that this rule is intended to protect the rights of the unborn child, particularly in matters of succession and property rights. For instance, in Sabapathi v. Somasundaram [1882] ILR 16 Mad. 76, it was held that an unborn child could be considered in existence to protect its property rights. However, the court emphasized that this legal fiction is created specifically for the benefit of the unborn child and cannot be universally applied. The court cited various cases, including Kusum Kumari Dasi v. Dasarathi Sinha AIR 1921 Cal. 487, to illustrate that the fiction of an unborn child being in existence is limited to situations where it is necessary for the child's benefit. Issue 2: Validity of the Assessment The court then examined whether the Income-tax Act allows for the application of this legal fiction in determining the status of the assessee for tax purposes. Section 2(2) of the Act defines "assessee" and Section 3 outlines the categories of persons liable to pay tax, including individuals and Hindu undivided families. The court found that the scheme of the Act is to assess tax based on profits earned in the previous year. Therefore, unless the unborn child was constructively in receipt of income during the period when it was in the womb, it cannot be said that there was a Hindu undivided family liable to be assessed during that period. The court further noted that taxing statutes should be clear and without ambiguity. It is a recognized rule that a taxing enactment cannot be construed by resorting to fictions or analogies. Therefore, the legal fiction of an unborn child being in existence cannot be applied to define the term "Hindu undivided family" under the Act. The court provided an illustration to highlight the practical difficulties and anomalies that would arise if the assessee's contention were accepted. For example, if a Hindu is assessed as an individual and a son is born after the assessment, the entire assessment would have to be reopened and reassessed, which the Act does not provide for. Additionally, if the child born is a female, there would be no coparcenary, making the initial assessment valid. Such conditional assessments are not warranted under the Act. Conclusion: The court concluded that the term "Hindu undivided family" under the Income-tax Act refers to a family where more than one member is in actual existence during the year of account. A son who has not yet come into existence cannot be considered a member of the family for tax assessment purposes. Therefore, the assessment of the assessee's income, other than his salary, as an individual until December 11, 1952, was valid. The question referred to the court was answered in the affirmative and against the assessee, who was ordered to pay the costs of the department.
|
