FAMILY OF LATE K.M.N.S.S. NACHIAPPAH CHETTIAR REPRESENTED BY HIS SON K.M.N.S.N. SUBRAMANIAM CHETTIAR Vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This reference -arises out of proceedings under Sec. 28(1)(c) of the Income -tax Act, 1922 and the question we are called upon to consider is:

(2.) Swaminatha and his son Nachiappa constituted a joint Hindu family, but on January 20, 1940, by a deed of partition of that date, they became divided. Nachiappa and his sons thereafter constituted a separate joint family and Nachiappa was assessed in the status of a joint Hindu family for the years 1944 -45 to 1948 -49 except 1945 -46. One June 11, 1948, there was a re -union between Swaminatha and Nachiappa, but the former died on July 5, 1948. On March 27, 1952, notices were issued under Sec. 28(1)(c) calling upon Nachiappa, in the status of a joint Hindu family to show cause why penalty should not be levied on the ground that he had failed to disclose the income for those years referable to certain investments as share capital in two partnership firms by name K.M.N.N.S. Firm, Dindigul and N.S.N.R.M. Firm, Singampuneri. After hearing the Assessee, an order of penalty followed which was, dated November 11, 1955, aggregating to Rs. 4,840. Throughout the penalty proceedings and the appeals arising thereout, the Assessee's contention was that its status as a joint Hindu family had come to an end with the re -union, so that the joint family that had defaulted to disclose the particular income ceased to exist both when proceedings under Sec. 28(1)(c) were initiated and penalty was levied. This contention did not prevail with the revenue authorities and the Tribunal.

(3.) Before us, learned Counsel for the Assessee has reiterated the same contention. He urges that the effect of the re -union was that the joint family -status had been restored as between Swaminatha and Nachiappa as if the partition, between them had been cancelled, and so the joint family consisting of Nachiappa and his sons after the death of Swaminatha, was not the same unit as the joint family of Nachiappa as it existed prior to the re -union. In Mayne's Hindu Law, eleventh edition, the effect of a re -union is stated thus: