Hindu undivided family membership under wealth-tax can include the karta's wife where the statute does not limit it to coparceners.

In wealth-tax law, the expression "Hindu undivided family" was treated as wider than coparcenary and as referring to a Hindu joint family that may include female members. The statutory language in paragraph 1(1A) of Part I of the Schedule to the Wealth-tax Act was read as not limiting membership to persons entitled to claim partition, because that restriction was absent from the provision itself and appeared only in a contrasting proviso in the Finance Act, 1973. On that construction, the wife of the karta was held to be a member of the Hindu undivided family, and the higher rate of wealth-tax was correctly applied.

---

---

Issues: Whether, for the purpose of paragraph 1(1A) of Part I of the Schedule to the Wealth-tax Act, a wife of the karta is a member of the Hindu undivided family so as to attract the higher rate of wealth-tax where her net wealth exceeds the prescribed limit.

Analysis: The expression "Hindu undivided family" in wealth-tax law is wider than coparcenary and is used in the sense of a Hindu joint family. A joint family may include female members, and the absence of words such as "entitled to claim partition" in paragraph 1(1A) shows that membership for that provision is not confined to persons having a right to partition. The contrast with the proviso in the Finance Act, 1973, which expressly refers to members entitled to claim partition, reinforces that Parliament did not intend to exclude female members from the wealth-tax schedule. The statutory language was treated as plain and controlling.

Conclusion: The wife of the karta is a member of the Hindu undivided family for the purpose of paragraph 1(1A) of Part I of the Schedule to the Wealth-tax Act, and the higher rate of wealth-tax was correctly applied.

Ratio Decidendi: In wealth-tax law, membership of a Hindu undivided family is not confined to coparceners or persons entitled to claim partition unless the statute expressly so provides.

---