9911796707
TMI Blog1965 (12) TMI 17X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n partition obtained his share out of the ancestral property of an original joint Hindu Mitakshara family. After partition, his family consisted of himself and his wife, there being no issue. Thus he is the sole coparcener in respect of the property that fell to his share after partition. The question for consideration is whether for the purpose of income-tax and wealth-tax he should be assessed as an " individual " or else, as a Hindu undivided family. Following the well known decision of the Privy Council in Kalyanji's case (Kalyanji Vithaldas v. Commissioner of Income-tax) and the subsequent decisions following the same, the Tribunal held that the assessee should be assessed only as an " individual ". But in Rukmini Bai Rathor v. Commi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bed as " joint property " of the undivided family. That decision was given while construing, the expression " Hindu undivided family " occurring in a taxing statute of Ceylon, namely, the Estate Duty Ordinance I of 1938, and there is no special reason why the principle laid down therein should not be applied in construing the same expression occurring in the taxing statutes of India. Kalyanji's case was actually noticed by their Lordships of the Privy Council, as will be clear from page 46. Our attention was, however, drawn to a judgment of the Rajasthan High Court in Mukat Beharilal Bhargava v. Commissioner of Income-tax, and that of the Madras High Court in K. R. Ramachandra Rao v. Commissioner of Wealth-tax, where, following the princi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e may beget a son or adopt a son. It also existed while the property was in the possession of a Hindu widow prior to the Hindu Succession Act of 1955, because by making a valid adoption she could continue the original joint family. It is true that in the Orissa case it was pointed out that when she becomes the full owner of the property by virtue of the Hindu Succession Act, the aforesaid potentiality disappears and the property in her hands must be assessed as that of an " individual ". Here, however, the assessee is a male, and whether he adopts a son or begets a son a coparcenary is established between him and his son. The property cannot be treated for all purposes as equivalent to his self-acquired property, in which alone his status c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
