9911796707
TMI Blog1986 (12) TMI 30X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ivided family of Shri Mahabir Prasad Budhia. Way back on March 22, 1956, there was a partial partition of the said family and at that time the respondent was a minor. Therein, he was allocated shares in the Ranchi Electric Supply Co., Budhia Brothers Pvt. Ltd. and Ganpatrai Properties Pvt. Ltd. and thereafter he acquired interest in some other immovable property as well. It is common ground that from the date of the partial partition, for nearly a decade, the returns were filed by him in the status of an individual up to the assessment year 1966-67 The assessment was also throughout made in the status of an individual. However, after his marriage on March 9, 1966, the assessee filed two returns one in the status of an individual and the ot ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... us and on August 16, 1978, the Division Bench directed that the following question of law for the decision of the court be stated: " Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the status of the assessee even after marriage was that of a Hindu undivided family and not that of an individual? " Apparently because of the significance of the issue, it was also directed that the case should be placed for hearing before a Bench of three judges. Since I am firmly inclined to the view that that the core question before us is now squarely governed both by binding and persuasive precedent, it would be unnecessary, if not wasteful, to launch on any elaborate dissertations on principle. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... resaid firm base, one may briefly advert to the undisputed facts and an objective test which may be applied thereto. Admittedly from 1956 onwards, after the partition of the earlier Hindu joint family, the assessee held his share as his separate individual property. At that time, he was a minor but it is not in dispute that after attaining majority as well both in law and fact, he held the taxable property as his separate property and his status as an individual one. It bears repetition that right from 1956 for ten years the respondent-assessee himself filed his returns in the status of an individual and was assessed as such. There seems to be no dispute that in this period he had an absolute and unlimited right of ownership to his separate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... present full ownership of the property cannot be affected." Having cleared the decks, one may now straightaway go to the authoritative enunciation of their Lordships in Surjit Lal Chhabda v. CIT [1975] 101 ITR 776 (SC), which, in my view, now conclusively covers the issue. Apart from other matters, the allied questions came in for direct consideration by their Lordships in the context of an assessee who, besides his wife, had an unmarried daughter as well. It was held therein as under (at pages 795-796): " The appellant has no son. His wife and unmarried daughter were entitled to be maintained by him from out of the income of Kathoke Lodge while it was his separate property. Their rights in that property are not enlarged for the reason th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Revenue because, as yet, the assessee has no issue whatsoever-male or female. The persuasive judgment that is on all fours is that of the Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in CIT v. Vishnukumar Bhaiya [1983] 142 ITR 357, which, in following Surjit Lal Chhabda's case [1975] 101 ITR 776 (SC), observed in identical circumstances as under (page 360 of 142 ITR) : " In the present case, as stated above, when the property was received by the assessee in partition, he was a single member and did not constitute a family. His status was that of an individual. In the circumstances, the fact of his marriage did not alter the position and in the absence of a son, the personal law of the assessee regards him as the owner of the property ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... whether a single individual would first constitute a family and would constitute a Hindu undivided family for the purpose of income-tax. They answered the threshold question in the negative by holding that a single individual does not constitute a family and consequently any further consideration of being a Hindu undivided family would not even arise. It was observed as under (at page 496): " It would follow from the above that the word family always signifies a group. Plurality of persons is an essential attributable of a family. A single person, male or female, does not constitute a family. He or she would remain, what is inherent in the very nature of thing, an individual, a lonely wayfarer till perchance he or she finds a mate. A fami ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
