Assessable entity must exist when income accrues; unborn son doctrine does not create a Hindu undivided family for tax purposes.

For income-tax purposes under the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, an assessable entity must exist when income accrues, and a Hindu undivided family is not treated as arising from the date of conception of a son. The doctrine that an unborn son has rights in joint family property is a special rule of Hindu law protecting proprietary interests, but it does not control identification of the assessee under sections 3, 4 and 22. Income accruing before the child's birth remained taxable in the hands of the individual, because no Hindu undivided family existed at that time.

---

---

Issues: Whether, for the purposes of assessment under the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, a Hindu undivided family came into existence from the date of conception of a son so that the income earned during the accounting year before the child's birth could be assessed in the hands of the family and not the individual.

Analysis: The doctrine that a son in embryo has rights in joint family property was held to be a special rule of Hindu law, mainly serving to protect proprietary rights, and not one of universal application. The scheme of the Income-tax Act, 1922, particularly sections 3, 4 and 22, requires identification of the assessable entity when income accrues or arises, and the Act contemplates persons and family units as existing realities at the relevant time. Applying the doctrine of conception would create uncertainty and anomalies in the machinery of assessment, including the filing of returns and the identification of the proper assessee. The fact that a son was born before the end of the accounting year did not alter the position that the income which accrued earlier belonged to the assessee when no Hindu undivided family was then in existence.

Conclusion: The family was not assessable from the date of conception, and the income accruing before the son's birth was rightly assessable in the hands of the individual; the answer was against the assessee and in favour of the revenue.

Final Conclusion: The decision affirms that, for income-tax purposes, the assessable unit must exist when income accrues, and a Hindu undivided family is not treated as having come into being merely because a son was conceived.

Ratio Decidendi: The doctrine recognising an unborn son's coparcenary rights in Hindu law does not govern the identification of the assessable person under the Income-tax Act, 1922, where liability attaches only to an entity in existence when income accrues.

---