1940 (10) TMI 17 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether a widow can be a member of a Hindu undivided family.
2. Whether the sum of Rs. 1,000 per month received by the petitioner in the account year 1934-35 was received by her as a member of a Hindu undivided family within the meaning of Section 14(1) of the Income Tax Act.
3. The effect of the agreement dated October 10, 1919, on the assessee's status and entitlement.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Whether a widow can be a member of a Hindu undivided family:

The court examined various authorities and precedents to determine if a widow can be considered a member of a Hindu undivided family. It was noted that there is a volume of authority to the effect that a widow of a coparcener is a member of the undivided family. The court referred to Mulla's Hindu Law, which states that a joint Hindu family consists of all persons lineally descended from a common ancestor and includes their wives and unmarried daughters. It was also highlighted that a Hindu coparcenary is a much narrower body than the joint family, including only those who acquire an interest in the joint property by birth.

The court cited several cases, including Vedathanni v. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Madras, where it was held that the widow of a member of a joint Hindu family is herself a member of that family within the meaning of Section 14(1) of the Income Tax Act. The Bombay High Court in The Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay Presidency and Aden v. Gomedalli Lakshminarayan also supported this view, emphasizing that the expression "Hindu undivided family" includes females and is much wider than "coparcenary."

Further, the court referenced the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in Kalyanji Vithaldas v. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Bengal, which stated that the phrase "Hindu undivided family" is used in the statute with reference to all schools of Hindu Law, and it is a mistake to assume that no female can be a member.

Based on these authorities, the court concluded that the widow of a Hindu coparcener, though not herself a member of the coparcenary body, may nevertheless be a member of the undivided family.

2. Whether the sum of Rs. 1,000 per month received by the petitioner in the account year 1934-35 was received by her as a member of a Hindu undivided family within the meaning of Section 14(1) of the Income Tax Act:

The Income Tax Officer had assessed the sum of Rs. 12,000 received by the assessee for the year ending March 31, 1935, under Section 34 read with Section 23(3) of the Act, holding that Section 14(1) was not applicable. The Assistant Commissioner upheld this view, stating that under the Mitakshara school of law, a widow cannot be a member of a coparcenary and therefore not a member of a Hindu undivided family.

The Commissioner of Income Tax, however, referred the question to the court, stating that the Hindu undivided family to which the assessee once belonged became disrupted in 1923, and she had no legal place in any of the separate entities formed post-disruption. Therefore, the maintenance allowance was not received by her as a member of a Hindu undivided family.

The court examined the contention that the assessee, having originally received the allowance as a member of a Hindu undivided family, continued to receive it in that capacity even after the family's disruption. It was argued that her status regarding the right to maintenance remained unchanged.

The court also considered the argument that there can be no partition between a female member of a Hindu undivided family and the coparceners. Thus, the assessee continued to be a member of a Hindu undivided family with each of the separate entities formed after the disruption.

3. The effect of the agreement dated October 10, 1919, on the assessee's status and entitlement:

The agreement dated October 10, 1919, where the assessee accepted that her husband had died as karta of the undivided family and surrendered her rights in the family property, was examined. The Income Tax Officer and the Assistant Commissioner held that the assessee's claim could only be based on this agreement, implying that the allowance was an annuity for consideration rather than maintenance received as a member of a Hindu undivided family.

However, the court noted that the Commissioner's reference assumed that the assessee was receiving the allowance as a member of a Hindu undivided family and that she lost the exemption only due to the 1923 disruption. Therefore, the court proceeded on this assumption.

The court concluded that the assessee continued to be a member of a Hindu undivided family with each of the entities formed post-disruption. Consequently, the allowance received by her was exempt from Income Tax under Section 14(1) of the Act.

Conclusion:

The court answered the reference in the affirmative, stating that the sum of Rs. 1,000 per month received by the petitioner in the account year 1934-35 was received by her as a member of a Hindu undivided family within the meaning of Section 14(1) of the Income Tax Act. The assessee was entitled to her costs of the reference, and a copy of the judgment was to be sent to the Commissioner of Income Tax, Central and United Provinces.