9911796707
TMI Blog1977 (3) TMI 26X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sary that there should be another male member to constitute a joint Hindu family because this is not a case of coparcenary. In support of his submission reliance is placed on Narendranath v. Commissioner of Wealth-tax [1969] 74 ITR 190 (SC). The first of the two writ petitions, viz., W. P. No. 6053 of 1973, relates to the assessment year 1970-71 and the second writ petition, viz., W. P. No. 263 of 1974, relates to the assessment year 1971-72. I do not think it is necessary in these two cases that the question whether the holdings of the wife could be clubbed along with the holdings of the petitioner will have to be considered, because in the returns filed by the petitioner himself, he did not claim to have filed the returns as the karta of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it is observed thus : " A Hindu joint family consists of all persons lineally descended from a common ancestor, and includes their wives and unmarried daughters. A Hindu coparcenary is a much narrower body than the Hindu joint family ; it includes only those persons who acquire by birth an interest in the joint or coparcenary property, these being the sons, grandsons and great-grandsons of the holder of the joint property for the time being. " Under those circumstances, the question arises as to what is the procedure for assessment. Firstly, it cannot be under section 9(2) of the Madras Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as " the Act "), because that sub-section says " in computing the total agricultural income ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... properties, or a Nambudiri or other family to which the rule of impartibility applies, a firm or a company, an association of individuals, whether incorporated or not, and any institution capable of holding property. " Therefore, a " person " would include thereunder an undivided Hindu Mitakshara family. This submission carries no merit because that relates to a case wherein the settlor or disponer retains some interest under the settlement. But, here, every conceivable interest has been parted with under the settlement deed dated November 25, 1959. Therefore, there is no possibility of clubbing the income of the petitioner as the karta of the joint Hindu family along with the holdings of the wife who got the properties separately under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
