GOWLI BUDDANNA Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS case raises a somewhat interesting question of law. At the instance of the assessee, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (Madras Bench) has referred to this court under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, to be referred to hereinafter as the Act, the following question of law.

(2.) THEY are :

(3.) UNDER section 3 of the Indian Income-tax Act, the liability to pay tax is charged not only on the income of Hindu undivided families. The expression "Hindu undivided family" is not defined in the Income-tax Act. Therefore, in order to understand that expression, we must fall back on the customary Hindu law. According to Sri Srinivasan, Buddanna being the sole surviving coparcener in his family and he having become the absolute owner of the quondam family properties, he should have been assessed as an individual and not as the karta of a Hindu undivided family. In other words, the contention of Sri Srinivasan is that unless the family consists of more than one coparcener, there cannot be an assessment on a Hindi undivided family. This view appears to have commended itself to the Calcutta High Court in In re Moolji Sicka. Speaking for the Bench Lort-Williams J. observed thus at page 136 :