Invalid HUF Claim Dismissed, Petitioner Lacks Evidence, No Costs Awarded

The court dismissed the writ applications as the petitioner failed to prove the existence of a Hindu undivided family owning the property. The inclusion of one-third share income in the petitioner's individual assessments was deemed justified due to lack of evidence supporting HUF ownership and the petitioner's conduct in offering the income for assessment without revising returns. No costs were awarded in the case.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the inclusion of one-third share income from property in the individual assessment of the petitioner was justified.
2. Whether the properties belonged to a Hindu undivided family (HUF) and should be assessed as such.
3. Whether the petitioner could dispute the inclusion of the income in appeals and revisions despite having included it in his returns.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Inclusion of One-Third Share Income from Property:
The petitioner challenged the inclusion of one-third share income from certain properties in his individual assessments for the years 1965-66, 1966-67, 1967-68, 1970-71, 1971-72, and 1972-73. The Commissioner of Income-tax rejected the revision petitions, finding that the properties were co-owned by the petitioner and his family members, and there was no evidence of a Hindu undivided family (HUF) existing. The petitioner had included the income in his returns, and no revised returns were filed to correct any alleged mistake.

2. Ownership by Hindu Undivided Family:
The petitioner claimed that the properties were owned by a Hindu undivided family, and thus, the income should be assessed in the hands of the HUF. The Commissioner found that the petitioner was governed by the Dayabhaga school of Hindu law, and the properties were co-owned with defined shares. There was no evidence of joint living or a decision to constitute a HUF. The court noted that the presumption of a joint family under the Mitakshara school does not extend similarly to the Dayabhaga school. The petitioner failed to prove the existence of a HUF by not providing cogent evidence of joint mess, estate, and worship.

3. Disputing Inclusion in Appeals and Revisions:
The petitioner argued that he could dispute the inclusion of the income in appeals and revisions despite having included it in his returns. The court examined several authorities cited by the petitioner but found them inapplicable to the present case. The court emphasized that the petitioner must be assumed to have known the true state of affairs when he offered the income to be assessed in his hands. The petitioner's conduct in offering one-third of the rental income for assessment in his returns indicated that the property did not belong to a HUF. The court concluded that the petitioner's actions and failure to revise the returns negated his contention that the income should not have been included in his individual assessment.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed each of the writ applications, holding that the petitioner failed to establish the existence of a Hindu undivided family owning the property. The inclusion of the one-third share income in the petitioner's individual assessments was justified based on the evidence and the petitioner's conduct. The court made no order as to costs.

---