9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Assessment of income for tax exemption under Section 14(1) of the Income Tax Act based on receipt as a member of a Hindu undivided family. Analysis: The judgment revolves around the assessment of an individual to Income Tax on a sum of Rs. 26,000 claimed to be exempt under Section 14(1) of the Income Tax Act. The key contention is whether the sum in question qualifies for exemption as it was received as a member of a Hindu undivided family. The section requires the presence of a Hindu undivided family, the claimant being a family member, and the sum being received in that capacity. The case involves a widow of the late holder of an impartible estate who, along with another widow, claimed a maintenance amount of Rs. 70,000 annually, with an additional Rs. 13,000 upon the death of either. The sum assessed represents these payments, which were received during the relevant year. The argument for exemption based on the payments being part of consideration for immovable properties or as agricultural income was dismissed. The focus shifted to whether the recipient was indeed a member of a Hindu undivided family. The judgment delves into the concept of maintenance in Hindu undivided families, emphasizing that a member's right to maintenance arises from joint income. It distinguishes between maintenance obligations for wives, minor children, and other dependents in Hindu undivided families versus non-Hindus or separate Hindus. The court emphasizes that when a maintenance allowance is received from joint family income, it is essentially the recipient's share of the income, making it taxable in the hands of the family unless exempted under Section 14(1). The court interprets the objective of Section 14(1) as providing an exemption for such sums, even if not previously assessed in the family's hands. It contrasts this with Section 14(2) exemptions, which apply to sums already belonging to the assessee. The judgment highlights that the assessee failed to raise crucial issues during the assessment or appeal, hindering a proper determination under Section 14(1). It notes that an impartible estate may or may not be self-acquired property, and the necessary facts for the assessment were not presented due to the lack of proper issues raised before the tribunals. Consequently, the court affirms that the question of whether the sum is taxable under Section 14(1) should be answered affirmatively, and the Commissioner of Income Tax is entitled to costs. The Chief Justice concurs with the decision, and the reference is answered accordingly.
|
