PROVINCE OF BIHAR Vs. GAJENDRA NARAIN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a reference by the Board of Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1938. The question refereed for decision is whether a Hindu joint family consisting of two brothers and their first cousin is covered by the proviso to section 10 of the Act.

(2.) Section 10 of the Act provides that the total agricultural income of a Hindu undivided family shall be treated as the income of one individual and assessed as such. The proviso states that if a Hindu undivided family consists of brothers only, or of a brother or brothers, and the son or sons of a brother or brothers, the total agricultural income of the family shall be assessed in the manner provided in the proviso. The family with which we are concerned consists of two branches descended from one Satruhan Prasad Singh. The present karta of the family is Gajendra Narain Singh, a grandson of Satruhan Prasad, and the family consists of the three sons of Gajendra Narain and of his two cousins (who are brothers inter se) and their sons. The learned Advocate for the assessee contends that if the family includes any two brothers, then it is a family to which the proviso to Section 10 applies. But that, in my view, is placing on the words of the proviso a connotation which its language does not support. The proviso premises either that there must be two or more brothers in existence at the time of the assessment and the family consists of them and their sons, or that the family must consists of a man and his sons and the sons of his brother or brothers. At the time of the present assessment Gajendra Narain had no brothers living, and, therefore, it is not a case of an assessment of a family consisting of brothers and their descendants. Nor is it a case of a family consisting of a man and his own sons and the sons of his brother or brothers, for, as I have already stated, Gajendra had no brothers alive at the time of the assessment. Whatever speculation may be possible as to the intention of the Legislature in enacting this proviso, we have to gather the intention from the language used, and the language used in the present instance does not justify the contention of the assessee in this case.

(3.) The reference is, therefore, rejected with costs, that is to say, the Department is permitted to retain the Rs. 100 deposited by the assessee.