Case: Gowlibuddanna Vs. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Mysore,Bangalore

survivorship by the sole surviving male member of a Hindu undivided family can be taxed in the hands of such male member as his own individual income for the purpose of assessment to super-tax under S. 55 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922." Commissioner of Income-tax v. A. P. Swamy Gomedalli, 1937-5 ITR 416: (AIR 1937 PC 239 )13. It may however be recalled that in Kalyanji Vithaldass case, 1937-5 ITR 90: 64 Ind App 28: (AIR 1937 PC 36 ) income assessed to tax belonged separately to four out of six partners: of the remaining two 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 Gomedalli Lakshminarayans case, 1935-3 ITR 367 : (AIR 1935 Bom 412 ) 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 bearing on the issue falling to be determined, was not given effect to by the Judicial Committee in A. P. Swamy Gomedallis case, 1937-5 ITR 416 (AIR 1937 PC 239 ).14. A recent judgment of the Judicial Committee in a case arising from Ceylon - Attorney-General of Ceylon v. A. R. Arunachalam Chettiar, (No. 2), 1957 AC 540: (1957-34 ITR Supp 42) is in point. One Arnuachalam - a nattukottai Chettiar - and his son constituted a joint family governed by the Mitakshara School of Hindu law. The father and the son were domiciled in India and had trading and other interests in India, Ceylon and Far Eastern Countries vide Attorney-General v. A. R. Arunachalam Chettiar (No. 1), (1957) AC 513. The undivided son died in 1934 and Arunachalam became the sole surviving coparcener in a Hindu undivided family to which a number of female members belonged. Arunachalam died in 1938, shortly after the Estate Duty Ordinance No. 1 of 1938 came into operation in Ceylon. By S. 73 of the Ordinance it was provided that property passing on the death of a member of a Hindu undivided family was exempt from payment of estate duty. At all material times, the female members of the family had the right of maintenance and other rights which belonged to them as such members. The widows in the family including the widow of the predeceased son had also the power to introduce coparcencers in the family by adoption, and that power was exercised after the death of Arunachalam. On a claim to estate duty in respect of Arunachalams estate in Ceylon, it was held that Arunachalam was at his death a member of a Hindu undivided family, the same undivided family of which his son, when alive was a member, and of which the continuity was preserved after Arunachalams death by adoptions by the widows of the family. The Judicial Committee observed at p. 543:"............... though it may be correct to speak of him (the sole surviving coparcener) 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 of 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 ownership, just because the property has been and has not ceased to be joint family property. * * * it would not appear reasonable to impart to the legislature the intention to discriminate, so long as the family itself subsists, between property in the hands of a single coparcener and that in the hands of two or more coparceners." Dealing with the question whether a single coparcener can alienate the property in a manner not open to one of several coparceners, they observed that it was, 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 property. That is what it is until he alienates it, and, if he does not alienate it, that is what it remains. The fatal flaw in the argument of the appellant appeared to be that, having labelled the surviving coparcener "owner," he then attributed to his ownership such a congeries of rights that the property could no longer be called "joint family property." The family, a body fluctuating in numbers and comprised of male and female members, may equally well be said to be owners of the property, but owners whose ownership is qualified by the powers of the coparceners. There is in fact nothing to be gained by the use of the word "owner" in this connexion. 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."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 the case in hand 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.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]Under S. 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 then 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 deceasedJudicial Committee accordingly held that in none of the six appeals before them could the income falling to be shares of the partners of a registered firm be treated as income of a Hindu undivided family and assessed on that footing. In the view of the Judicial Committee, income received by four out of the six partners was their separate income: in the case of the remaining two partners the income was from sources which were ancestral. But merely because the source was held by a member who had received it from his father and was on that account ancestral, the income could not be deemed for purposes of assessment to be income of a Hindu undivided family, even though Kanji had a wife and a daughter, and Sewdas had a wife who had rights to be maintained under the Hinduof 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 the case in hand 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.