9911796707
TMI Blog1936 (11) TMI 26X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... deed dated 11th September 1930. Its business was that of dealers in Indian tobacco and cigarettes. The assessment to income-tax of the registered firm has been made in due course, and the present controversy is whether six of the partners should each be assessed to super-tax upon his share of the profits as an individual, or whether these six shares should each be assessed as income of a Hindu undivided family. The rates of super-tax imposed by the relevant Finance Act are less in the case of a Hindu undivided family than in the case of an individual. The problem has to be answered by applying to the facts of each case the language of S. 55 of the Act: "In addition to the income-tax charged for any year there shall be charged, levi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... das, wife Mohan Das. II VITHALDAS Kalyanji (wife 3 sons, daughter). Chaturbhuj (wife, daughters). Champsi The history of the firm according to the Commissioner is that in or about 1912 the business was begun by Moolji and Purshottam (brothers who had separated) and Kalyanji (who is not related to either), and that in no case were ancestral funds employed for the purpose. That in 1919 Moolji made gifts of capital to each of his sons by his first wife namely, Kanji and Sewdas. That at least since 1919 Moolji, Kanji and Sewdas have been separate from each other. That in 1919 on the terms of a Gujarati deed dated 1st May, Kanji (son of Moolji) and Chaturbhuj (brother of Kalyanji) were taken into the partnership. That in 1930 Sewdas and Ka ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h Court might well have answered the second question in the negative and said of the first question that it did not arise. In none of the four cases above-mentioned, viz., those of Moolji, Purshottam, Kalyanji and Chaturbhuj does the fact that the man has a wife and daughter (or more than one) affect the result. The existence of a son does not make his father's selfacquired property family property or joint property. That the existence of a wife or daughter does so is untenable. There remain the cases of Kanji and Sewdas. Neither has a son but, in the case of each, his interest in the firm was obtained by gift from his father Moolji. Without deciding the question which was left open in Lal Ram Singh v. Deputy Commissioner (50 I.A. 265 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under assessment was the income of that family. This is due no doubt to the way in which the Commissioner had stated the questions. But, after all if the relevant Hindu law had been that the income belonged, not to the assessee himself but to the assessee, his wife and daughter jointly, it is difficult to see how that association of individuals could have been refused the description "Hindu joint family". The phrase "Hindu undivided family" is used in the statute with reference, not to one school only of 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e happening of a particular event, or may be answerable for particular obligations, or may pass at his death in a particular way ; but if, in spite of all such facts, his personal law regards him as the owner, the property as his property and the income therefrom as his income, it is chargeable to income-tax as his, i.e., as the income of an individual. In their Lordships' view it would not be in consonance with ordinary notions or with a correct interpretation of the law of the Mitakshara, to hold that property which a man has obtained from his father belongs to a Hindu undivided family by reason of his having a wife and daughters. The result is that in the cases of Moolji, Purshottam and Kalyanji the first question stated by the Comm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
