Income from an impartible estate is the holder's absolute income and is taxable in his individual hands, not as family income.

Whether income derived from an impartible estate is taxable in the holder's individual hands or as HUF income turns on the legal character of the estate and the nature of receipts. Movables and income arising from an impartible estate are generally the absolute property of the holder and do not automatically accrete to the estate; incorporation of immovables requires clear proof of intention. The rule preventing double taxation of amounts already assessed to a family does not apply where the holder receives income as sole incumbent. Accordingly, the specified receipts from the impartible estate are taxable to the holder individually rather than to the Hindu undivided family.

---

---

Issues: Whether income derived from an impartible estate (sums of Rs. 8,434 under property, Rs. 998 under business and Rs. 3,755 under other sources) is assessable to income-tax in the hands of the holder as an individual or must be assessed as income of the Hindu undivided family of which he is a member.

Analysis: The issue turns on the legal character of an impartible estate and the nature of income derived from it. Authorities distinguish impartible estates from ordinary joint family property by the absence of partition rights and other incidents of joint ownership, though survivorship may remain. Privy Council decisions (including Shibaprasad Singh v. Prayag Kumari Debee and Rani Jagadamba Kumari v. Wazir Narain Singh) establish that movable property and income derived from an impartible estate do not automatically become accretions to the estate and that the income when received is the absolute property of the holder. Prior decisions require clear proof of an intention to incorporate immovables into an impartible estate; movable property and income are not similarly incorporable as a rule. Section 14 of the Income-tax Act (exemption for sums received as a member of a Hindu undivided family) is intended to prevent double taxation where income has been assessed to the family; it does not operate where the holder of an impartible estate receives income as the sole incumbent and not as a member entitled to share in joint family income. Precedents applying these principles show that where the income is the sole property of the holder of the impartible estate, it is assessable to him individually.

Conclusion: The income from the impartible estate specified (Rs. 8,434; Rs. 998; Rs. 3,755) is the individual income of the holder and was rightly assessed to income-tax in his individual name rather than as income of the Hindu undivided family.

---