1934 (10) TMI 11

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... divided family." The section premises; (i) a Hindu undivided family; (ii) that the person claiming exemption is a member of the family, and (iii) that the sum referred to is received as a member of the family. The assessee is a widow of the brother of the late holder of the Darbhanga Raj which is an impartible estate. On the death of her husband she and a co-widow claimed the estate alleging that their husband had been separate from his brother. Ultimately the widows withdrew their claim on certain terms, two only of which are material at present. It was agreed (a) that each of the widows should receive for life, as maintenance, properties yielding ₹ 70,000 net per annum, and (b) that on the death of either of them the survivor .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... hat when a member of a Hindu undivided family receives a grant by way of maintenance from the head of the family it is necessarily received "as the member of family." I am unable to accept this contention. It is only in the case of a Hindu undivided family that the statute provided that a sum received as a member is exempt from the tax and it seems to me that the reason for this special consideration is obvious. In the case of an undivided Hindu family all the members have an interest in the joint income of the family and are entitled as of right to enjoy it. The fact that by reason of well recognised disqualifications such as certain diseases or sex, certain members are unable to claim the rights of fully participating coparcener .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... from taxation whether it has in fact been assessed in the hands of the family or not. It appears to me that the object of Section 14(1) is to assure this exemption and no more. The remainder of Section 14 lends supports to this view. Sub-section (2) exempts from assessment sums received by an assessee (a) by way of divided as a shareholder in a company or (b) out of the profits of a firm of which he is a partner. It will be observed therefore that what the second sub-section exempts are sums which belonged to the assessee even before they actually reached him. Reading Section 14 as a whole I am able to see no reason why the first sub-section should be held to apply to a sum in which the assessee has no interest until it is actually receive .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X