9911796707
TMI Blog1996 (8) TMI 85X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by the Mitakshara school of Hindu law. The said assessee derived share of income from two firms, namely, Pawan Kumar Arun Kumar and others and H. U. Textile, Shillong. The share income from the said two firms was included in the return filed by the assessee in the status of a Hindu undivided family. The Assessing Officer took the view that there should be at least two male members to form a Hindu undivided family and in the absence of a second male member the assessee could not be assessed in the status of the Hindu undivided family. The Assessing Officer also took the view that the fact that assessee, Arun Kumar Jhunjhunwalla, was married on April 27, 1980, and no son was born to him during the relevant period would not alter the positio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... were income from joint family consisting of the said Arun Kumar Jhunjhunwalla and his wife, and, accordingly, it was held that the share income was to be treated as joint family income and assessment ought to have made accordingly. At the instance of the Revenue, the present reference has been made under section 256(1) of the Act referring the above referred question. We have heard Mr. G. K. Joshi, learned senior standing counsel assisted by Mr. U. Bhuyan, learned junior standing counsel on behalf of the Revenue, and Dr. A. K. Saraf, learned counsel assisted by Mr. K. K. Gupta, on behalf of the assessee. Mr. Joshi submits before us that said Arun Kumar Jhunjhunwalla being the only male member, there could not be a joint family in vie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ers. However, all coparceners are members of a Hindu joint family and they have right to seek partition. Dr. Saraf, further submits that a single male member, with some female can form a joint family. In support of his contention, Dr. Saraf has relied on the few decisions, namely, in (1) CIT v. Mulchand Sukmal Jain [1993] 200 ITR 528 ; 1 GLR 79 ; (2) Gowli Buddanna v. CIT [1966] 60 ITR 293 (SC) ; (3) N. V. Narendranath v. CWT [1969] 74 ITR 190 (SC); (4) Ashok kumar Ratanchand v. CIT [1990] 186 ITR 475 (AP) and (5) Bharath Kumar D. Bhatia v. CIT [1993] 199 ITR 190 (Kar). Besides these Dr. Saraf also relied on a decision in Surjit Lal Chhabda [1975] 101 ITR 776 (SC). On the rival contentions of counsel appearing on behalf of the assessee as w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and widows of deceased coparceners. " The Supreme Court further observed that : "The plea that there must be at least two male members to form a Hindu undivided family as a taxable entity also has no force. The expression 'Hindu undivided family' in the Income-tax Act is used in the sense in which a Hindu joint family is understood under the personal law of Hindus. Under the Hindu system of law a joint family may consist of a single male member and widows of deceased male members, and apparently the Income-tax Act does not indicate that a Hindu undivided family as an assessable entity must consist of at least two male members ". The Supreme Court in the said decision further observed at page 302 which is also extracted below : " Prope ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... du Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956. Maintenance of a wife by her husband is a matter of personal obligation which attaches from the moment of the marriage, even if her husband is not possessed of any property. She is entitled to enforce this personal obligation by creating a charge on his property, either acquired or ancestral. The property which a coparcener obtains on partition does not become for all time his individual and separate property. The property which a Hindu coparcener obtains on partition and who marries subsequently is conditioned by the obligation to maintain his dependants. The status of the unit of assessment after marriage is necessarily that of a Hindu undivided family and the income from such property is assessable ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... amily and the income therefrom should be regarded as his income even after the property is thrown into joint family hotchpot. The income, therefore, is chargeable in the appellant's hand as his individual income. On this, Mr. Joshi at a later stage agreed, that a joint family can be formed with a single member, but he emphasises that in the decision of Surjit Lal Chhabda [1975] 101 ITR 776 (SC), it was held that till a son was born, the appellant was to be regarded as the owner of the property and the income therefrom should be assessed as his individual income. It is now abundantly clear that in order to constitute a joint family, it is not always necessary that there should be two male coparceners. Even prior to the Hindu Succession Act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
