9911796707
TMI Blog1935 (10) TMI 10X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he year 1932-1933 (accounting year 1931-1932) notice was issued to Gangayya under Section 22(2) of the Income-tax Act on the 9th April, 1932, and he filed his return on the 20th May, 1932, showing a net income of ₹ 12,755. Gangayya died on the 15th July, 1932, before assessment could be levied on him. After his death the Petitioner continued to carry on the business. Notices were then issued to him under Sections 22(4) and 23(2) of the Act. He complied with these notices and was finally assessed to income-tax on a total I taxable income of ₹ 50,550. The Income-tax Officer did not levy on him super-tax on the excess over ₹ 30,000 of the total income on the assumption that the Petitioner like his father represented a Hindu u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ughout the previous year, and if he had received the whole of the profits for that year. 5. In support of his contention that he is not liable to assessment under the above section the Petitioner urges two points. In the first place he contends that inasmuch as he got the entire business by survivorship under Hindu Law he cannot be said to have succeeded' to the business within the meaning of that term as used in the section. In other words he argues that there cannot be a succession by a person to something of which he was in part the owner already. His next contention is that for the application of the section a person carrying on any business, profession or vocation should be succeeded in such capacity by another person, that he alo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t have by such succession become the owner of the business which his predecessor was carrying on and which he after the succession carries on in such capacity, that is the capacity as owner. If this view is correct as we think it is, then it seems fairly clear that the undivided Hindu family which was carrying on business has not been "succeeded" in such capacity by the Petitioner as the Petitioner was himself in part the owner of the property already and as such there has been no transfer of ownership in the business as he has become entitled to it by survivorship. No authority relevant for deciding the point has been cited by either side. The decision relied on by the Commissioner in Arunachalam Chettiar v.. Commissioner of Inco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e only one living now may well be said to represent in his person the undivided Hindu family. But it is not necessary1 to pursue this line of thought, as, as already stated, the petitioner has his wife living, and do they not taken together constitute an undivided Hindu family? If a son is born to them there cannot be any doubt that there would come an undivided Hindu family in existence and so it is said that potentially there is an undivided family now in existence. On the other hand it is urged that when the original undivided family is reduced to a single member the property of the family loses its character of joint family property and that the sole remaining member is reduced to the position of an individual owning these properties an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
