Facts

One Buddappa, his wife, his two unmarried daughters and his adopted son Buddanna were members of a Hindu undivided family. Buddappa died on July 9, 1952. In respect of the business dealings of the family, Buddappa was assessed during his lifetime in the status of a manager of the Hindu undivided family. For the assessment year 1951-52 the Income-tax Officer, assessed Buddanna in respect of the income of the previous year, as a Hindu undivided family under the title  “Sri Gowli Buddappa (deceased) represented by his legal successor Sri Gowli Buddanna, Oil Mills Owner, Raichur.”

Issue

Whether the sole male surviving coparcener of the Hindu joint family, his widowed mother and sisters constitute a Hindu undivided family within the meaning of the Income-tax Act? And whether the assessment of the income in     the hands of the Hindu undivided family was correct?

View

Under section 3 of the Income-tax Act, not a Hindu coparcenary but a Hindu undivided family is one of the assessable entities. 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 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. Therefore, there may be a  joint Hindu family consisting of a single male member and widows of deceased coparceners. The plea that there must be at least two male members to form a Hindu undivided family as a taxable entity also has no force. The expression“Hindu undivided family” in the Income-tax Act is used in the sense in which        a Hindu joint family is understood under the personal law of Hindus. Under the Hindu system of law a joint family may consist of a single male member and widows of deceased male members, and apparently the Income-tax Act does not indicate that a Hindu undivided family as an assessable entity must consist of at least two male members.

Held

Property of a joint family, therefore, does not cease to belong to the family merely because the family is represented by a single coparcener who possesses rights which an owner of property may possess. In this case the property which yielded the income originally belonged to a Hindu undivided family. On the death of Buddappa, the family which included a widow and females born in the family   was represented by Buddanna alone, but the property still continued to belong to that undivided family and income received therefrom was taxable as income of   the Hindu undivided family. (AY. 1951-52) (CA No. 328 of 1965 dt. 10-01-1966)

Editorial: This decision should be read with the decisions in, Attorney-General   of Ceylon v. Arunachalam Chettiar [1957] AC 540/[1958] 34 ITR (ED) 42, Kalyanji Vithaldas v. CIT (1937) 5 ITR 90 (PC), T.S. Srinivasan v. CIT (1966). 60 ITR 36 (SC), N. V. Narendra Nath v. CWT (1969) 74 ITR 190 (SC), C. Krihana Prasad v. CIT (1974) 97 ITR 493 (SC), Chandresen v. CWT (1986) 161 ITR 370 (SC)

“Strength does not come from winning. When you go through hardships and decide not to surrender, that is strength.”

– Mahatma Gandhi