The Privy Council in Anant Bhikappa Patil v. Shankar Ramachandra Patil AIR 1943 PC 196 held that the coparcenary must be taken to continue so long as there was alive a widow of the deceased coparcener. In CIT v. Veerapa Chettiar,(1970) 76 ITR 467(SC) it is held that even after the death of the sole male member so long as the original property of the Joint Family remains in the hands of the widows of the members of the family and the same is not divided amongst them; the Joint Hindu Family continues to exist. In the context of Income Tax Act, in C. Krishna Prasad v. CIT [1974] 97 ITR 493 (SC) it was held that in order to determine the status of the assessee for the purpose of income-tax we have to look to the relatives as they exist at present and it would not be correct to project into the matter future possibilities which might or might not materialise. It was further held that “A single person, male or female, does not constitute a family. He or she would remain, what is inherent in the very nature of things, an individual, a lonely wayfarer till perchance he or she finds a mate. A family consisting of a single individual is a contradiction in terms. Section 2(31) of the Act treats a Hindu undivided family as an entity distinct and different from an individual and it would, in our opinion, be wrong not to keep that difference in view.” Thus, it was concluded that a single male or female member will not constitute HUF. Following said decision in Seethammal vs. Commissioner of Income-tax [1981] 130 ITR 597 (Madr) (HC) it was held that where HUF consisted only of Karta and his wife and death of karta reduced family to single individual, family could be said to be disappeared and, therefore, section 171(1) had no application and assessment could not be made as in status of HUF.