Court rules HUF transfers not taxable under Section 9(2)(a)(iv)

The court held that Section 9(2)(a)(iv) of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Income-tax Act did not apply to transfers made by the assessee as the karta of a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF). Consequently, the Board of Revenue's decision to include the gifted lands in the assessee's assessment was overturned. The tax cases were allowed with costs, and the counsel's fee was set at Rs. 250.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether a Hindu undivided family could exist where the family consisted of one male member and female members; (ii) whether property obtained on partition retained the character of Hindu undivided family property and whether section 9(2)(a)(iv) applied to the settlement made in favour of minor daughters.

Issue (i): whether a Hindu undivided family could exist where the family consisted of one male member and female members.

Analysis: The legal position recognised in the decided cases is that a Hindu undivided family is not confined to more than one male member. A family consisting of a sole male coparcener and female members can still constitute a Hindu undivided family for tax purposes.

Conclusion: Yes. The family in the present case was a Hindu undivided family.

Issue (ii): whether property obtained on partition retained the character of Hindu undivided family property and whether section 9(2)(a)(iv) applied to the settlement made in favour of minor daughters.

Analysis: Property received on partition by a coparcener having wife and minor daughters may continue to be joint family property in his hands. The decisive test is the character of the property and not merely the existence of powers of alienation. Where the property belongs to the Hindu undivided family, a settlement by the karta is, in legal effect, a transfer by the family of its own property and not a transfer by an individual of separate property to a minor child. On that footing, the provision dealing with transfers of an individual's assets to minor children does not apply.

Conclusion: Section 9(2)(a)(iv) was not attracted and the settlement could not be included in the assessee's individual assessment.

Final Conclusion: The revision petitions succeeded because the lands remained Hindu undivided family property and the impugned statutory provision could not be invoked against the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: Property obtained on partition and continuing to retain the character of joint family property cannot be treated as the individual property of the karta merely because he has powers of management or alienation, and a provision taxing transfers by an individual to minor children does not apply to a transfer by a Hindu undivided family of its own property.

---