TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1996 (8) TMI 85
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rs to form a Hindu undivided family and in the absence of a second male member the assessee could not be assessed in the status of the Hindu undivided family. The Assessing Officer also took the view that the fact that assessee, Arun Kumar Jhunjhunwalla, was married on April 27, 1980, and no son was born to him during the relevant period would not alter the position. The Assessing Officer treated the share from the above two firms as individual income of the assessee and made the assessment regarding payment of tax as an individual. The assessee preferred an appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The appeal was allowed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) accepting the contentions of the assessee that it was a Hindu undivided family with his wife as member of the said Hindu undivided family after the marriage. On further appeal before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal preferred by the Revenue, the Tribunal reversed the order passed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and restored the order passed by the Assessing Officer. As a result, the share income was assessable as an individual income. At the instance of the assessee, reference has b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....i. He submits that even a sole male member with some female member can form a family. No doubt he submits that female members of a Hindu joint family are not coparceners. Their rights are limited. It is the coparcener who has the right to seek partition and according to the present law, when there is partition female members shall also be entitled to receive share of the property. Dr. Saraf submits that a Hindu coparcenary is a much narrower body than the joint family. All members of a joint family are not coparceners. However, all coparceners are members of a Hindu joint family and they have right to seek partition. Dr. Saraf, further submits that a single male member, with some female can form a joint family. In support of his contention, Dr. Saraf has relied on the few decisions, namely, in (1) CIT v. Mulchand Sukmal Jain [1993] 200 ITR 528 ; 1 GLR 79 ; (2) Gowli Buddanna v. CIT [1966] 60 ITR 293 (SC) ; (3) N. V. Narendranath v. CWT [1969] 74 ITR 190 (SC); (4) Ashok kumar Ratanchand v. CIT [1990] 186 ITR 475 (AP) and (5) Bharath Kumar D. Bhatia v. CIT [1993] 199 ITR 190 (Kar). Besides these Dr. Saraf also relied on a decision in Surjit Lal Chhabda [1975] 101 ITR 776 (SC). On the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rely because the family is represented by a single coparcener who possesses rights which an owner of property may possess. In the case in hand the property which yielded the income originally belonged to a Hindu undivided family. On the death of Buddappa, the family which included a widow and females born in the family was represented by Buddanna alone, but the property still continued to belong to that undivided family and income received therefrom was taxable as income of the Hindu undivided family. " In N. V. Narendranath v. CWT [1969] 74 ITR 190 (SC), a similar point came for consideration before the apex court. In the said decision also, the Supreme Court observed that : " The expression 'Hindu undivided family' in the Wealth-tax Act is used in the sense in which a Hindu joint family is understood in the personal law of Hindus. Under the Hindu system of law a joint family may consist of a single male member and his wife and daughters and there is nothing in the scheme of the Wealth-tax Act to suggest that a Hindu undivided family as an assessable unit must consist of at least two male members. " In Ashok Kumar Ratanchand v. CIT [1990] 186 ITR 475 (AP), it was held tha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt regarded the appellant as a owner of the property held in the name of the joint family and the income therefrom should be regarded as his income even after the property is thrown into joint family hotchpot. The income, therefore, is chargeable in the appellant's hand as his individual income. On this, Mr. Joshi at a later stage agreed, that a joint family can be formed with a single member, but he emphasises that in the decision of Surjit Lal Chhabda [1975] 101 ITR 776 (SC), it was held that till a son was born, the appellant was to be regarded as the owner of the property and the income therefrom should be assessed as his individual income. It is now abundantly clear that in order to constitute a joint family, it is not always necessary that there should be two male coparceners. Even prior to the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, in a joint family property a wife or other female members were entitled to maintenance under the Hindu Women's Right to Property Act, 1937. This Act introduced an important change in the law relating to the rights of women succession, which came into force from April 14, 1937. This Act gave at least a limited right to property to certain classes of the wo....