Hindu undivided family income depends on legal ownership, not mere family presence, for super-tax assessment.

For super-tax under the Income-tax Act, income is attributable to a Hindu undivided family only when it belongs to that family in law. A partner's share in firm profits remained the individual income where the interest was self-acquired and had not been thrown into the common stock; even an assumed ancestral character did not create family income in the absence of a son and resulting coparcenary interest. A wife's or daughter's right to maintenance did not divest ownership or convert separate property into joint family property. On these principles, the disputed share income was assessed as the income of the individual partners, not as family income.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the assessees' shares in the profits of the registered firm were assessable to super-tax as the income of a Hindu undivided family or as the income of the individual partners under Section 55 of the Income-tax Act, 1922. (ii) Whether the existence of a wife or daughter, without a son, converted self-acquired or ancestral property into family income for assessment purposes.

Issue (i): Whether the assessees' shares in the profits of the registered firm were assessable to super-tax as the income of a Hindu undivided family or as the income of the individual partners under Section 55 of the Income-tax Act, 1922.

Analysis: The relevant enquiry was whether the income could properly be attributed, in ordinary legal sense, to a Hindu undivided family. Where the partner's interest in the firm was self-acquired and had not been thrown into the common stock, the income remained the partner's own income, even though he was a member of a Hindu undivided family. Even where an interest derived from a father was assumed to be ancestral in character, the absence of a son meant that no coparcenary interest had arisen in favour of the family.

Conclusion: The income of the partners was not assessable as family income in the circumstances stated, and where the share was self-acquired it was assessable as the income of the individual partner; where no son existed, the family claim also failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the existence of a wife or daughter, without a son, converted self-acquired or ancestral property into family income for assessment purposes.

Analysis: A wife's or daughter's right to maintenance does not divest the husband's ownership or convert his separate property into joint family property. The mere existence of wife or daughter does not make either self-acquired property or ancestral property belonging to one man income of a Hindu undivided family. The statutory phrase 'income of' was to be given its ordinary legal meaning and not enlarged by loose notions of family ownership.

Conclusion: The presence of a wife or daughter did not make the income assessable as that of a Hindu undivided family.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed because the disputed share income was not liable to be treated as family income on the facts found, and the assessments as individual income were sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: For super-tax under the Income-tax Act, income is attributable to a Hindu undivided family only when, in law, it belongs to that family; self-acquired property, and ancestral property in the absence of a coparcenary interest arising by birth, remain the income of the individual owner, and wife or daughter alone does not convert such income into family income.

---