COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. GOMEDALLI LAKSHMINARAYAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a reference made by the Commissioner of Income-tax under Section 66(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, and the first question Raised is,

(2.) THE facts are that there was a joint Hindu family consisting of a father and his wife and a son and his wife, the son being the present assessee. THE father died in 1929 before the year of assessment, so the joint Hindu family then consisted of the son, his mother and his wife, and the question raised by the Commissioner appears to me to admit the existence of a joint Hindu family. Of such existence, I think, there can be no question. It is clear law that you may have a joint Hindu family consisting of one male member and female members who are entitled to maintenance, although that does not mean that every Hindu who possesses a wife and a mother is necessarily a member .of a joint Hindu family, as Mr. Justice Lort-Williams seems to think in the Calcutta case referred to below. THE question raised is whether the assessee is to be assessed as an individual or as a member of the joint Hindu family, and the importance of the question lies in this, that for the purposes of super-tax he will be allowed a larger exemption if he is taxed as the manager of a joint Hindu family than if he is taxed as an individual.

(3.) THE Commissioner to pay the costs of the assessee to be taxed by the Taxing Master on the Original Side scale.