1972 (11) TMI 10 - HC - Wealth-tax

One member of the family gets divided and there are no other coparceners - whether the separated member can constitute a joint family by himself - Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the assessee s status was correctly taken as that of an individual ? - In the present case the assessee does not have any other person male or female as a member of his family. As a sole coparcener he cannot in law be deemed to constitute a Hindu undivided family. He was rightly assessed in the status of an individual - Question answered in the affirmative

Summary

Issues:
1. Determination of the assessee's status as an 'individual' or a member of a Hindu undivided family for income tax assessment.

Detailed Analysis:
The judgment delivered by the High Court of Allahabad pertained to a case where the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal referred a question of law regarding the correct status of the assessee, who was a member of a Hindu undivided family, as either an 'individual' or a part of the family. The assessee had undergone partial partitions within the family, ultimately becoming separated from all other members and becoming the exclusive owner of the properties allotted to him. Despite claiming the status of a Hindu undivided family for the assessment year, the Income-tax Officer, Appellate Assistant Commissioner, and Appellate Tribunal all assessed him as an individual.

The court examined the legal principles governing the constitution of a Hindu undivided family, emphasizing that an individual alone cannot constitute a Hindu undivided family, requiring at least two members, irrespective of gender. Citing legal precedents, the court highlighted that a Hindu undivided family can include females, such as a widow with a right of adoption and her unmarried daughter, as long as there is a possibility of adding a male member to the family. The court also referenced the interpretation of 'Hindu undivided family' under personal law and the Income-tax Act, emphasizing that the presence of a single male member can maintain the family status.

Furthermore, the court discussed the distinction between a coparcenary and a Hindu undivided family, noting that while females cannot be coparceners, they are members of a Hindu undivided family. The judgment referenced various legal cases to support the position that a joint family must consist of more than one member and that a sole coparcener without any other family member cannot constitute a Hindu undivided family for assessment purposes. The court aligned with previous decisions that emphasized the necessity of multiple members for the existence of a joint family.

Ultimately, the court answered the question in favor of the revenue, affirming that the assessee, as a sole coparcener without any other family member, was rightly assessed as an individual for income tax purposes. The judgment highlighted the legal requirement of multiple members for the constitution of a Hindu undivided family and upheld the assessment of the assessee as an individual based on the absence of additional family members.