9911796707
TMI Blog1974 (11) TMI 2X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... High Court answered the following question referred to it under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to " the Act "), in the affirmative, in favour of the revenue and against the assessee-appellant: " Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee was rightly assessed in the status of an individual for the assessment year 1964-65 ? " C. Krishna Prasad, assessee-appellant, along with his father, Krishnaswami Naidu, and brother, C. Krishna Kumar, formed a Hindu undivided family up to October 30, 1958, when there was a partition between Krishnaswami Naidu and his two sons. In the said partition the assessee got some house properties and vacant sites. The partition was recognised by th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Income-tax refrained from expressing an opinion on the point " whether a Hindu undivided family may for the purposes of the Indian Income-tax Act be treated as a taxable entity when it consists of a single member---male or female ". After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that the question which arises for determination in this appeal should be answered against the assessee. Section 4 of the Act provides for the charging of income-tax on the total income of every person subject to the conditions prescribed in that section. " Person " has been defined in section 2(31) of the Act and includes, inter alia, an individual and a Hindu undivided family. The inherent fallacy of the case set up on behalf of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... joint family consists of all persons lineally descended from a common ancestor and includes their wives and unmarried daughters. A Hindu coparcenary is a much narrower body than the joint family: it includes only those persons who acquire by birth an interest in the joint or coparcenary property, these being the sons, grandsons, and great-grandsons of the holder of the joint property for the time being. The plea that there must be at least two male members to form a Hindu undivided family as a taxable entity has no force. Under Hindu law a joint family may consist of a single male member and widows of deceased male members. The expression " Hindu undivided family " in the Income-tax Act is used in the sense in which a Hindu joint family is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... without legal necessity or he may make a gift of it. If a son is subsequently born to him or adopted by him, the alienation, whether it is by way of sale, mortgage or gift, will nevertheless stand, for a son cannot object to alienations made by his father before he was born or begotten (see page 320 ibid.). In view of the above it cannot be denied that the appellant at present is the absolute owner of the property which fell to his share as a result of partition and that he can deal with it as he wishes. There is admittedly no female member in existence who is entitled to maintenance from the above-mentioned property or who is capable of adopting a son to a deceased coparcener. Even if the assessee-appellant in future introduces a new memb ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arties was as under : DHULAPPA Punnappa Hanamantappa d. 1901 Gundappa Narayan Ramchandra d.1902 d.1908 Bhikappa d.1905 = Gangabai Shankar Hanmant Babu defendant Keshav Anant d. 1917 adopted 1930 plaintiff Dhulappa's sons, Punnappa and Hanamantappa, separated in 1857. The watan lands in dispute went to the share of Punnappa. Narayan, one of the sons of Punnappa, separated from him in his lifetime. Thereafter Punnappa died in 1901. Bhikappa died in 1905, leaving his widow Gangabai and son, Keshav. Narayan died issueless in 1908 leaving two plots of watan lands. On the remarriage of the widow of Narayan, those two plots devolved by inheritance on Keshav. Keshav died unmarried in 1917. At that time his nearest heir was his collateral, Shan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ellant. As would appear from the facts of that case, the question involved there related to the adoption by a widow after the death of the sole surviving coparcener. The question with which we are concerned, as to whether an individual can constitute a Hindu undivided family, was not before the Judicial Committee and it expressed no opinion on that question. According to Mr. Desai it is implicit in that judgment that from 1917 when Keshav died till 1930 when Anant, plaintiff, was adopted, there was a joint Hindu family even though the joint family consisted of Gangabai alone. We find it difficult to agree with Mr. Desai in this respect. As would appear from the facts of that case, Anant was adopted by Gangabai as son of Bhikappa. It is now ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
