1965 (12) TMI 17

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....l joint Hindu Mitakshara family. After partition, his family consisted of himself and his wife, there being no issue. Thus he is the sole coparcener in respect of the property that fell to his share after partition. The question for consideration is whether for the purpose of income-tax and wealth-tax he should be assessed as an " individual " or else, as a Hindu undivided family. Following the well known decision of the Privy Council in Kalyanji's case (Kalyanji Vithaldas v. Commissioner of Income-tax) and the subsequent decisions following the same, the Tribunal held that the assessee should be assessed only as an " individual ". But in Rukmini Bai Rathor v. Commissioner of Wealth-tax a Division Bench of the Orissa High Court, after disc....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....while construing, the expression " Hindu undivided family " occurring in a taxing statute of Ceylon, namely, the Estate Duty Ordinance I of 1938, and there is no special reason why the principle laid down therein should not be applied in construing the same expression occurring in the taxing statutes of India. Kalyanji's case was actually noticed by their Lordships of the Privy Council, as will be clear from page 46. Our attention was, however, drawn to a judgment of the Rajasthan High Court in Mukat Beharilal Bhargava v. Commissioner of Income-tax, and that of the Madras High Court in K. R. Ramachandra Rao v. Commissioner of Wealth-tax, where, following the principle in Kalyanji's case, it was held that the property in the hands of a sole....