# N. y. NARENDRANATH v. COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX, ANDHRA PRADESH, HYDERABAD

- **Citation:** [1969] 3 S.C.R. 882
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1969-03-07
- **Case number:** Civil Appeals Nos. 1477 to 1479 of 1968
- **Bench:** J. C. Shah, V. Ramaswami, A. N. Grover
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/n-y-narendranath-v-commissioner-of-wealth-tax-andhra-pradesh-hyderabad-4656
- **Pages:** 12

## Headnote

Wel4.Jth Tax Act, '1957, section 3-Family consisting of sole surviving
. Hindu coparcener, his wife and daughters, whether assessable as Hindu
Undivided Family or as individual-Assessee receiving
property
from
r.oparcenary on partition-Character of.
In respect of his assessment to wealth tax for the assessment years
1957-58, 1958-59 and 1959-60, the appellant filed returns in the status
,of a Hindu Undivided Family. His family at the material time consisted
of himself, his wife and two minor daughte'rs.
Jbe appellant claimed to
be assessed in. the status of a Hindu Undivided Family inasmuch as the
wealth returned consisted of ancestral property received or deemed to
have been received by him on Partition with his father and b1others. The
Wealth Tax Officer did not accept the contention of the appellant and
assessed him as an individu.al.
The Appellate
Assistant Commissioner
confirmed this view.
However, the Appellate Tribunal
held
that the
appellant should be assessed in the status of Hindu Undivided Family
but the High Court, upon a referen~, disagreed with the view of the
Appellate Tribunal and held that as the appellant family did not have aay
other male coparcener, all the assets forming the ·subject matter of the
returns filed by the appellant belonged to him as an individual and not
to a Hindu Undivided Family.
On appeal to this Court,
HELD : Allowing the appeal :
The status of the appellant was rightly determined as that of a Hindu
Undivided Family by the Appellate Tribunal.
The
expression
"Hindu
Undivided Family" in the Wealth Tax Act is used in the sense in which
a Hindu joint family is understood in the personal law of Hindus. Under
the Hindu system of law a joint family may consist of a single
male
member and his wife and daughters and there is nothing in the scheme
of the Wealth Tax Act to suggest that a Hindu Undivided Family as an
assessable unit must consist of at least two male members. [886 C]
Under s. 3 of the Wealth Tax Act not a Hindu coparcenary but a
Hindu Undhided Family is one of the assessable legal entities. A Hindu
joint family consists of all persons lineally descended from a common an·
cestor, and includes their wives
and
unma'rried
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, grand-sons and great grandsons of the holder of the joint property for the time bein2. [885 F-H]
Kalyanji Vitholdas v. Commissioner of Income Tax,
5
Commissioner of Income Tex v. Gomedalli Lakshminara,van
T.R. 367 considered.
I.T.R. 90,
[1935]
3
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
NARENDRANATH v. c.W.T. (Ramaswami, !.)
88 3
Commissioner of Income Tax v. A. P. Swam.v Gomedalli'. 5 l.T.R.
416, Attorney General of Ceylon v. A.R. Arunachal/am Chettwr [1957]
A.C. 540, Gowali Buddanna's [1960] 6 1.T.R. 203 referred to.
T. s. Srinivasan v. Commissioner of Income lax 60, l.T.R. 36 !tstinguished.

## Text

882
N. y. NARENDRANATH
v.
COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX, ANDHRA PRADESH,
HYDERABAD
March 7, 1969
(J. C. SHAH, V. RAMASWAMI AND A. N. GROVER, JJ.j
Wel4.Jth Tax Act, '1957, section 3-Family consisting of sole surviving
. Hindu coparcener, his wife and daughters, whether assessable as Hindu
Undivided Family or as individual-Assessee receiving
property
from
r.oparcenary on partition-Character of.
In respect of his assessment to wealth tax for the assessment years
1957-58, 1958-59 and 1959-60, the appellant filed returns in the status
,of a Hindu Undivided Family. His family at the material time consisted
of himself, his wife and two minor daughte'rs.
Jbe appellant claimed to
be assessed in. the status of a Hindu Undivided Family inasmuch as the
wealth returned consisted of ancestral property received or deemed to
have been received by him on Partition with his father and b1others. The
Wealth Tax Officer did not accept the contention of the appellant and
assessed him as an individu.al.
The Appellate
Assistant Commissioner
confirmed this view.
However, the Appellate Tribunal
held
that the
appellant should be assessed in the status of Hindu Undivided Family
but the High Court, upon a referen~, disagreed with the view of the
Appellate Tribunal and held that as the appellant family did not have aay
other male coparcener, all the assets forming the ·subject matter of the
returns filed by the appellant belonged to him as an individual and not
to a Hindu Undivided Family.
On appeal to this Court,
HELD : Allowing the appeal :
The status of the appellant was rightly determined as that of a Hindu
Undivided Family by the Appellate Tribunal.
The
expression
"Hindu
Undivided Family" in the Wealth Tax Act is used in the sense in which
a Hindu joint family is understood in the personal law of Hindus. Under
the Hindu system of law a joint family may consist of a single
male
member and his wife and daughters and there is nothing in the scheme
of the Wealth Tax Act to suggest that a Hindu Undivided Family as an
assessable unit must consist of at least two male members. [886 C]
Under s. 3 of the Wealth Tax Act not a Hindu coparcenary but a
Hindu Undhided Family is one of the assessable legal entities. A Hindu
joint family consists of all persons lineally descended from a common an·
cestor, and includes their wives
and
unma'rried
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, grand-sons and great grandsons of the holder of the joint property for the time bein2. [885 F-H]
Kalyanji Vitholdas v. Commissioner of Income Tax,
5
Commissioner of Income Tex v. Gomedalli Lakshminara,van
T.R. 367 considered.
I.T.R. 90,
[1935]
3
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
NARENDRANATH v. c.W.T. (Ramaswami, !.)
88 3
Commissioner of Income Tax v. A. P. Swam.v Gomedalli'. 5 l.T.R.
416, Attorney General of Ceylon v. A.R. Arunachal/am Chettwr [1957]
A.C. 540, Gowali Buddanna's [1960] 6 1.T.R. 203 referred to.
T. s. Srinivasan v. Commissioner of Income lax 60, l.T.R. 36 !tstinguished.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeals Nos. 1477
to 1479 of 1968.
Appeals from the judgment and order dated November 30,
1964 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Case Referred No. 49
of 1962.
s. T. Desai and K. Jayaram, for the appellant (in aH the
appeals).
D. Narsaraju, G. C. Sharma, R. N. Sachthey and B. D. Sharma,
for the respondent (in all the appeals).
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Ramaswami, J.
These appeals are brought by certificate
from the judgment of the Andhra. Pradesh High Court, dated
30th November, 1964 in Reference Case No. 49 of 1962.
N. V. Rangarao; the father of the appellant, was the holder
of an impartible estate called the "Munagala Estate"
in
the
Krishna District in the State of Andhra Pradesh.
This estate
was abolished under the Madras Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948,
and
compensation
under
section 45 of the Act was paid severally to the appellant, his
father and his brothers. Other properties belonging to the joint
family of the appellant, his father and brothers were also partitioned between them from time to time.
The assets forming the
subject of reference to the High Court consisted of investments
made from the compensation amount received by the appellant
in securities; shares etc. and also other assets such as deposits in
Banks.
The appellant filed returns for the
assessment
years
1957-58, 1958-59 and 1959-60 in the status of a Hindu Undivided Family. The appellant's family during the material time
consisted of himself, his wife and his two minor daughters and
there was no other male member. The appellant claimed to be
assessed in the status of a Hindu Undivided Family inasmuch as
the wealth returned consisted of ancestral property received or
deemed to have been received by him on partition with his father
and. brothers.
The Wealth Tax Officer did not accept the contention of the appellant and assessed him as an individual for the
assessment years 1957-58, 1958-59 and 1959-60.
On appeal
to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Wealth Tax the findmg that he must be assessed as an individual was
confirmed.
L It Sup.CJ/69-7
884
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1969] 3 S.C.R.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal however on appeal by, the
appellant held that he should be assessed in the status of a Hindu
Undivided Family.
Thereupon,, the Commissioner of Wealth
Tax applied to the Tribunal to state a case to the High Court
under section 27(1) of the Wealth Tax Act (Act No. 27 of
1957) (hereinafter called the Act). The Tribunal accordingly
referred the following question of law for the opinion of the
B
High Court:
"Whether the status of the assessee
was
rightly
determined as Hindu Undivided Family ?"
The High Court disagreed with the view of the Appellate Tribunal and held that as the appellaint's family did not have any . c
other male coparcener all the assets forming the subject matte1
of the returns filed by the appellant belonged to him as an individual and not to a Hindu Undivided Family.
The High Court
answered the question in favour of the appellant and against the
Commissioner of Wealth Tax.
It is necessary at this stage to set out the relevant provisions
D
of the Act as they stood at the material time :-
"Section 2 : In this Act,· unless the context otherwise requires-
( e) "assets" includes property of every
description, movable or immovable, but does not includeE
(i) agricultural land and growing crops, grass or
standing trees on such land;
(ii) any building owned or occupied by a cultivator or receiver of rent or revenue out of agricultural
land:
p
(iii) animals;
(ix) a right to anY' annuity in any case of where the
terms and conditions relating thereto preclude the commutation of any portion thereof into a lump sum grant;
G
( v) any interest in property where the interest is
available to an assessee for a period not exceeding six
years;
(m) "net wealth" means the amount by which the
aggregate value computed in accordance with the provisions of this Act of all the assets, wherever located,
H
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
NARENDRANATH v. C.W.T. (Ramaswami, !.)
88 5
belonging to the assessee on the valuation date, including assets required to be included in his net wealth a;
on that date under this Act, is in excess of the aggregate value of all the debts owed by the assessee on the
valuation date other than,-
(i) debts which under section 6 are not to be taken
into account; and
(ii) debts which are secured on, or which have
been incurred in relation to, any asset in respect of
which wealth-tax is not payable under this ~ct.
Section 3 : Charge of Wealth-tax : Subject to the
other provisions contained in this Act, there shall be
charged for every financial year commencing on and
from the first day of April, 1957, a tax (hereinafter
referred to as wealth-tax) in respect of every individual, Hindu Undivided Family and company at the
rate or rates specified in the Schedule.
Section 5 : Exemption in respect of certain assets :
(i) Wealth-tax shall not be payable by an assessec
in respect of the following assets and such assets shall
not be included in the net wealth of the assessee-
(ii) the interest of the assessee in the coparcenary
property of any Hindu Undivided Family of which he
is a inember".
Under s. 3 of the Wealth Tax Act not a Hindu coparcenary
but a Hindu Undivided Family is one of the assessable legal 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 nan-.Jwer
body than the Hindu joint family; it includes only those p~rsons
who acquire by birth an interest in the joint or
coparc~nary
property, these being the sons, grand-sons and great granc'-sons
of the holder of the joint property for the time being.
In ;\:alyanji Vithaldas v. Commissioner of Income Tax, (1) Sir George
Rankin observed :
~
"The phrase "Hindu Undivided Family" is used in
the statute with reference, not to one school only of
(!) 5 J.T.R. 90.
886
SUPREM/B COURT REPORTS
[1969] 3 S.C.R.
Hindu law, but to all schools; and their Lordships think
it a mistake in method to begin by pasting over the
wider phrase of the Act the words "Hindu co-parcenary", all the more that it is not possible to say on the
face of the Act that no female can be a member".
The first question involved in this case is whether the status of
the appellant was that of a Hindu undivided family consisting of
himself, his wife and his daughters. In our opinion, there is no
warrant for the contention of the respondent that there must be
at least two male members to form a Hindu Undivided Family
as a taxable unit.
The expression "Hindu Undivided Family"
in the Wealth Tax Act is used in the sense in which a Hindu joint
family is understood in the personal law of Hindus. Under the
Hindu system of law a joint family may consist of a single male
member and his wife and daughters and there is nothing in the
scheme of the Wealth Aax Act to suggest that a Hindu Undivided
Family as an assessable unit must consist of at least two male
members.
The next question is whether the assets which came lo the
share of the appellant on partition ceased to bear the character
of joint family properties and became the individual property
in his hands. In this connection, a distinction must be drawn
between two classes of cases where an assessee is sought lo be
assessed in respect of ancestral property held by him :
( 1)
where property not originally joint is received by the assessee and
the question has to be asked whether it has acquired the character
of a joint family property in the hands of the assessee and (2)
where the property already impressed with
the
character
of
joint family properly comes into the hands of the assessee as a single
coparcener and the question required to be considered is whether
it has retlrined the character of joint family property in the hands
of the assessee or is converted into absolute property of the
assessee. In Kalyanji's(') case there were six appeals presented
before the Judicial Committee by six partners of the firm of M/s.
Moolji Sicka and Co., viz., Moolji, Purshottam, Kalyanji,
Chalurbhuj, Kanji and Sewdas. Moolji, Purshottam and Kalyanji
each had a son or sons from whom he was not divided. It was
found by the appellate tribunal that the capital supplied by them
to the partnership business belonged to them in their individual
capacities and was their self acquired property. Hence the income of the firm which had to be assessed to super-tax was the
separate income of each of these partners.
Chaturbhuj had a
wife and daughter but no son.
Kanji and
Sewdas,
sons of
Moolji, were married men but neither had a son. It was found
by the appellate tribunal that Chaturbhuj Kanji and Sewdas had
(J) 51.T.R. 90
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
NARENDRANATH v. C.W.T. (Ramaswami, J.)
88 7
received by gift from Moolji their respective share capital in
the firm, that the share capital belonged to them in their individual capacities and was self acquired. The question at issue was
whether the existence of a son and a wife or a wife and a daughter
made the income of the partners the income of the Hindu Undivided Family rather than the income of the individual partner.
The Judicial Committee held that though the income was from
an ancestral source, the fact that each partner had a wife or
daughter did not make that income from ancestral source income
of the Hindu Undivided Family of the partner, his wife and
daughter.
Different considerations would be applicable, where property
already impressed ;with the character of joint family property
~omes into the hands of a single coparcener. The question to
be asked in such a case is whether the property retains
the
character of joint family property or whether it sheds the character of joint family property and becomes the absolute property
of the single coparcener.
In Commissioner of Income Tax v.
D
Gomedalli Lakshminarayan, (') the property was
ancestral
in
the hands of the father and the son had acquired an interest in
it by birth.
There was a subsisting Hindu Undivided
Family
during the life-time of the father and that family did not come
to an end on his death. On these facts, the Bombay High Court
B
'
G
H
held that the income received from the property was liable to
super-tax as the income of the Hindu Undivided Family in the
hands of the son who was the sole surviving male member of the
Hindu Undivided Family in the year of assessment. The reasoning was that the property from which income accrued originally
belonged to a Hindu Undivided Family and on the death of the
father it did not cease to be property of that Hindu Undivided
Family but continued to belong to that Hindu Undivided Family
and its income in the hands of the son was, therefore, assessable
as income of the Hindu Undivided Family.
There was .a Yitai
distinction between the facts of this case and the facts in Kalymii!'s
case('). This distinction was not noticed by the Judicial Com·
mittee in Kalyanji's case.(') when it observed that the Bombay
High Court "arrived too readily at the conclusion that the income
was the income of the family".
Wh.-:n Gomeda/li's case(') was
carried on appeal the Judicial Committee once again failed to
notice the distinction and wrongly reversed the decision of the
Bombay High Court holding that the facts of the case were not
materially different from the facts in Ka~vanji's case(')
[See the
decisio,n of the Judicial Committee in Commissioner of lllcome
Tax v. A. P. Swamy Gomedalli(')l.
(I) (1935) 3 l.T.R. 367.
(2) 5 1.T.R. 90.
(J) 5 I.T.R. 416.
;
888
SUPIU!ME COURT REPORTS
[1970] I s.C.R
The recent decision of the Judicial Committee in Attorney
General of Ceylon v. AR. Arunachalam Chettiar(') is important.
One Arunachalam-Nattukottai Chettiar-and his son constituted a joint family governed by the Mitakshara school of Hindu
law. The father and son were domiciled in India and had trading and other interests in India, Ceylon and Far Eastern countries. The undivided son died in 1934 and Arunachalam became
the sole surviving coparcener in the Hindu Undivided Family to
which a number of female members belonged.
Arunachalam
died in 1938 shortlv after the Estate Ordinance No. I of 1938
came into operation" in Ceylon. By section 73 of the Ordinance
it was provided that property passing on the death of a member
of the Hindu Undivided Family was exempt from payment of
estate duty. On a clairn to estate duty in respect of Arunachalam's
estate in Ceylon, the Judicial Committee held that Arunachalam
was at his death a member of the Hindu Undivided Family, the
same undivided family of which his son, when alive, was a mem-·
ber and of whii:h the continuity was
preserved after Arunachalam's death by adoptions made by the widows of the family and
since the undivided Hindu family continued to persist, the property· in the hands of Arunachalam as a single coparcener was
the property of the Hindu Undivided Family. The Judicial Committee observed at page 543 of the Report :-
". . . . . . though it may be correct to speak of him
as the 'owner', yet it is still correct to describe that which
he owns as the joint family property.
For his ownership is such that upon the adoption of a son it assumes
a ·different quality; it is such, too, that female members
cf the family (whose members may increase) have a
right to maintenance out of it and in some circumstances
to a charge for maintenance upon it.
And these are
incidents which arise,
notwithstanding his
so-called
cwnership, just because the property has been and has
not ceased to be joint family property. Once again their
Lordships quote from the judgment of Gratiaen, J. (')
"To my mind it would make a mockery of the
undivided family system if this temporary reduction of
the coparcenary unit to a single individual were to convert what was previously joint property belonging to an
undivided family into the separate property of the surviving coparcener".
To this it may be added that it
would not appear reasonable to impart to the legislature
the intention to discriminate, so long as the family itself
rnbsists, between property in the hands of a single copar-
(I) (1957] A.C. 540.
(2) (1953) 55 C.N.L.R. 496-501.
B
c
D
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
NARENDRANATH v. C.W.T. (Ramaswami, /.)
889
cener and that in the hands of two or more coparceners".
The Judicial Committee rejected the contention of the appellant
that since a single coparcener had full power over the property
held by him, he must be held to be the absolute owner and observed
that fact that he possesses a large power of alienation :
" . . . . . . . . appears to their Lordships to be an irrelevant consideration. Let it be assumed that his power
of alienation is unassailable : that means no more than
that he has in the circumstances the power to alienate
joint family propeny. That is what it is until he alienates
it and, if he does not alienate it, that is what it remains
...... It is only by analysing the nature of the rights
cf the members of the undivided family, both those in
being and those yet to be born, that it can be determined
whether the family propeny can properly be described as
'joint propeny• of. the undivided family."(')
The basis of the decision was that the propeny which was the joint
family propeny of the Hindu Undivided Family did not cease to be
so because of the "temporary reduction of the coparcenary unit to
a single individual". The character of the property, viz., that it
was the joint propeny of a Hindu Undivided Family, remained the
same.
The same principle was applied by this Court in Gowali Buddanna's(') case. In that case, one Buddappa; his wife, his two
unmarried daughters and his unmarried son, Budanna, were members of a Hindu Undivided Family. Buddappa died and after his
death the question arose whether the income of the propenies held
by Buddanna as 'the sole surviving coparcener was assessable as
the individual income of Buddanna or as the income of the Hindu
Undivided Family. It was held by this Court that since the propeny which came into the hands of Buddanna as the sole surviving
coparcener was originally joint family property, it did not cease to
belong to the joint family and income from it was assessable in the
hands cf Buddanna as income of the Hindu Undivided Family. In
the course of the judgment Shah, J. speaking for the Court examined
the decision of the Judicial Committee in Kalyanji's case(') and
Gomedalli's(') and pointed out that there was a clear distinction
between the two classes of cases :
"It may however be recalled that in Kalyanji Vithaldas's case(') the income assessed to tax belonged separately to four out of six partners; of the remaining two
(I) (1966) 60 l.T.R. 293.
(2) 601.T.R. 293.
{\) 51.T.R. 90.
(4) (!935) 3 1.T.R. 367.
890
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1969] 3 S.C.R.
it was from an ancestral source, but the fact that each
such partner had a wife or daughter did not make that
income from an ancestral source income of the undivided
family of the partner, his wife and daughter. In Gomeda//i Lakshminarayan's case('), the property from which
income accrued belonged to a Hindu Undivided Family
and the effect of the death of the father, who was · a
manager, was merely to invest the rights of a manager
upon the son.
The income from the property was and
continued to remain the income of the undivided family.
This distinction, which had a vital bearin2 on the issue
falling to be determined, was not given effect to by the
Judicial Committee in A. P. Swami Gomedalli's case(').
At page 302 Shah, J. referred to the decision of the Judicial Committee in A runacha/am's (') case and concluded as follows:-
''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 posesss. In the case
in hand the property which yielded the income originally
belonged to a Hindu Undivided Family. On the death
of Budappa, 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 ;axable as income of the Hindu undivided family".
In the present case the property which is sought to be taxed in
the hands of the appellant ori,gina!ly belonged to the Hindu Undivided Family belonging to the appellant, his father and his
brothers.
There were joint family properties of that Hindi: Undivided Family when the partition took place between the appellant, his father and his brothers and these properties came to the
share of the appellant and the question presented for determination
is whether they ceased to bear the character of joint family properties and became the absolute properties of the appellant.
As
pointed out by the Judicial Committee in Arunachalam's case(")
"it is only by analysing the nature of the rights of the members
of the undivided family, both those in being and those yet to be
born, that it can be determined whether the family property can
properly be described as "joint property of the undivided family".
Applying this test it is clear that. though in the absence of male
issue the dividin~ coparcener may be properly described in a sense
as the owner of the properties. that upon the adoption of a son or
birth of a son to him. it would assume a different quality. It con·
-- --- -------
ll) (19.~'.i) .'· 1.T.R. ~67.
·'.~) {1957] A.C. 5Hl
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
NARENDRANATH v. C.W.T. (Ramaswami, J.)
8 91
tinues to be ancestral property in his hands as regards his male
issue for their rights had already attached upon fr and the partition
only cuts off the claims of the dividing coparceners. The father
and his male issue still remain joint. The same rule would apply
even when a partition had been made before the birth of the male
issue or before a son is adopted, for the share which is taken at a
partition by one of the coparceners is taken by him as representing
his branch. Again the ownership of the dividing coparcener is such
"that female members of the family may have a right to maintenance out of it and in some circumstances to a charge for maintenance upon if". (See Arunachalam's(') case). It is evident that
these are the incidents which arise because the properties have been
and have not been ceased to be joint family properties.
It is no
doubt true that there was a partition between the assessee.
his
wife and minor daughters on the one hand and his father and
brothers on the other hand.
But the effect of partition did not
affect the character of these properties which did not cease t.: be
joint family propl!rties in the hands of the appellant. Our conclusion is that when a coparcener having a wife and two minor daughters and no son receives his share of the joint family prop~~ties
on partition. such property in the hands of the coparcener be!cngs
to the Hindu Undivided Family of himself, his wife and n:inor
daughters and cannot be assessed as his individual property. It
is clear that the present case fall> within the ratio of the decision
of this Court in Gowa/i Buddanna's case(') and the Appellate
Tribunal was right in holding that the status of the respondent
was that of a Hindu Undivided Familv and not that
of
an
individual.
·
On behalf of the respondent reference was
made
to ·the
decision of this Conrt in T. S. Srinivasan v.
Commissioner of
'Income Tax('), and it was contended that the decision proceeded
cm the basis that property received by the coparcener on partition cannot be regarded ·as property of
a
Hindu
Undivided
Family if he has merely a wife or daughter and no son.
It is
therefore necessary to examine the material facts and find out
what is the ratio decidendi of that case.
The appellant was a
member of the Hindu Undivided family with his father and
brothers. As a result of partial partition of properties beloncrin"
to the Hindu Undivided Family the appellant received certai~
shares and with tsese shares as nucleus he acquired house nroperties. shares and deposits.
His first son was born on 11th
December. 1952 and it was common ground that the conception
of the child must have taken place some time in March. 1952.
For the assessment year 1953-54 the relevant accounting year
being !he_ financialy_ea_i-_ 1st April 1952 to 31st March, 19S3. the
t 1 l jl957] A.C. 5!0.
I~) 60 1.T_R. :'!93.
()) 60 l.T.R. )<.
892
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1969] 3 s.C.R.
appellant claimed that the income from the assets
should be
assessed in the hands of the Hindu Undivided Family consisting
of himself and his son which, according to him, had come into
i:xistence in or about March, 1952 when the son was conceived.
The Income Tax Officer recognised the Hindu Undivided- Family
only from the date of the birth of the son, viz., 1 lth December,
1952 and assessed the income till 11th Deci:mber, 1952 in the
hands of the appellant as an individual.
The Appellate Assistant
Commissioner and the Tribunal upheld this
view
on appeal.
Before the High Court the question debated was whether the
Hindu Undivided Family came into existence in or about March,
1952 when the son was conceived and whether the assessei: could
be assessed in the status of an individual for any part of the relevant accounting year.
The question was answi:red against the
assessee by the High Court. The assessee appealed to this Court
and the contention of the appellant was that according to the
doctrine of Hindu law a son conceived is in the same position as
a son actually in existence.
The argument was rejected by this
Court which held that the Hindu Undivided Family did not
come into existence on the conception of the son as claimed by
the appellant, but came into being when the son was actually
born. It was suggested on behalf of the respondent that the
decisicn of this case must be taken to be implicitly, if not explicitly that there was no Hindu Undivided Family prior to the date
of the. birth of the son. But we do not think that any such implication can be raised.
The case of the appellant throughout the
course of the proceedings was that the Hindu Undivided Family
came into existence for the first time in or about March, 1952
when the son was conceived and it was not his case at any time
that a Hindu Undivided Family was in existence prior to the·
conception of the sop.
Indeed, it was common ground between
the parties that there wa5 no Hindu Undivided Family in existence
prior to the conception of the son. The only dispute was whe·
ther the Hindu Undivided Familv came into existence for the
first itme when the son was conceived as claimed by the assessee
or whether it came into existence when the son was born as
claimed by the Income Tax Department.
The appellant relied
on the doctrine of Hindu law that the son conceived is in the same
position as the son born and the respondent contended that this
doctrine was inapplicable.
That was the only question raised
before this Court which. it was called upon to decide and which in
fact it decided. The question whether there was in any event
even without a son conceived or born,
a Hindu
Undivided
Family consisting of the apoellant and his wife and whether the
properties received on partition belonged to that Hindu Undivided
Family was neither raised nor argued before this
Court which
had no occasion to consider it. The decision of T. S. Srini8
c
D
H
A
B
NARENDRANATH v. C.W.T. (Ramaswami, J.)
8 9 3,
vasan's case(') has therefore no bearin1 on the question now
presented for determination in the present case.
for the reasons already. expressed we hold that the status of
the appellant was rightly determined as that of a Hindu Undivided Family by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and the
question of law referred to the High Court must be answered in
the affirmative and against the Commissioner of Wealth Tax.
These appeals arc accordingly allowell with costs. One hearing
fee.
R.K.P.S.
Appeals allowed.
(I) 60 l.T.R. 36.