9911796707
TMI Blog1940 (8) TMI 37X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ter's son's son, Partab Bhan Prakash Singh, was to be the sole owner of the taluqa and of all the moveable and immovable properties owned by the testatrix at the time of her death. By the same will the Bani directed that on her death, a guzara of ₹ 3500 per mensem or more which she herself might be getting at the time of her death be given to Rudh Kumari mother of Partab Bhan Prakash Singh and widow of Kunwar Partab Bahadur Singh daughter's son of the testatrix. It was also provided that the guzara will be a charge on the entire estate. Bani Pirthipal Kuar died in 1932 and the Court of Wards, who had taken over management of the estate soon after the death of Raja Sheo Baksh Singh, began to pay guzara to the applicant Thakurain Rudh Kumari after the death of the Rani Pirthipal Kuar. 2. In the assessment year 1937-38, the Income-tax Officer, Sitapur, on receiving information from the Court of Wards that the applicant had received in the previous year a maintenance allowance of ₹ 30,000, issued a notice under S. 22 (2), Income-tax Act, calling upon the applicant to file her return of income for the year 1936-37. The return for the year was filed by the appl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hters ... The existence of joint estate is not an essential requisite to constitute a joint family and a family which does not own any property may nevertheless be joint. 4. Again in para. 213 it is said : 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 .... 5. The distinction is in fact recognized by more than one High Court in India. In ('32) 19 AIR 1932 Mad 733 : 140 I C 17 : 56 Mad 1 : 63 M L J 542 (S B), Vedathanni v. Commr. of Income-tax, Madras it was held that there can be a joint family with a single male member provided there are widows of deceased coparceners or other persons entitled to maintenance from him, and in ('38) 6 I T R 157, Kedar Narain Singha v. Commissioner of Income-tax C.P. U.P, their Lordships of the Allahabad High Court said : Ordinarily a married daughter is not a member of the family of her father or mother, nor can the daughter's son be said to be such a member, but it is said that the expression 'undivided Hindu family' used in S. 14 differs from what is called a Hindu coparcenary body which is a mu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aintain his aged mother and he is bound to maintain her, whether or not he has inherited property from his father. 9. In fact it was not denied by the learned counsel for the department that as the mother of Kunwar Partab Bhan Prakash Singh, the applicant is entitled under the Hindu law to receive maintenance from him. It follows, therefore, from the rulings cited above that by virtue of her right to receive maintenance from the ward of the Court and his estate, the applicant comes under S. 14 (1) of the Act, and the maintenance received by her is not assessable. This being so the existence of a will in the applicant's favour is to my mind of no consequence. Indeed, I can think of no reason why the will of Rani Pirthipal Kuar should deprive the applicant of her rights under the law. Further, the very fact that instead of ₹ 3500 a month to which the lady was entitled under the will, she is receiving only ₹ 2500 a month shows that the guzara is received by her not under the will but as mother of the proprietor of the estate. The amount was presumably fixed by the Court of Wards with regard to the extent of the estate and the status of the proprietor. The learned co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 937-38 was received by her as maintenance in virtue of her position in the family as the mother of the proprietor of the estate and is not referable to the will of Rani Pirthipal Kunwar. In her will dated 25th August 1928 Rani Pirthipal Kunwar stated that she herself received ₹ 3500 a month as guzara from the Court of Wards and that this amount would probably be increased in future. She also received sir and sawai as guzara. She bequeathed by her will the same amount to Thakurain Rudh Kumari, that is to say, whatever amount she herself would be getting at the time of her death. She died in 1932. There is nothing to show what amount she herself was receiving between the years 1928-32, but presumably it was some amount in excess of ₹ 3500 per mensem. There can be no doubt in my opinion that if Thakurain Rudh Kumari received a similar amount after the death of Rani Pirthvipal Kunwar it would be necessary to presume that that amount was received by her as guzara under the will and that following the decisions of various Courts it would be necessary to hold that this guzara was not exempted under S. 14 (1), Income-tax Act, because it was a charge on the entire estate and wou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
