TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1935 (4) TMI 21
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....te father. It appears that in the lifetime of his father, the assessee had received from the former an allowance of Rs. 38,000 a year. The present Maharaja makes an allowance of Rs. 49,000 per annum to the assessee in addition to the babuana grant. The question which has been referred for our opinion is whether the assessee is taxable in respect of this Rs. 48,000. The question has been argued with respect to the terms of the first sub-section of Section 14 of the Income Tax Act, 1922. Section 3 of that Act provides that income tax shall be charged in respect of all income, profits and gains of every individual, Hindu undivided family, company, firm and other association of individuals. For the purpose of the Act, Section 2 (9) enacts that "person" includes a Hindu undivided family, and for the purpose of proceedings under the Act a Hindu undivided family is treated as a unit for the purposes for taxation. In the third sub-section of Section 4 of the Act are enumerated certain classes of income which are exempts absolutely from the operation of the Act. The classes of income included in this sub-section are not taken into consideration either for the purpose of ascertaining the amo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... equality and that impartiality of justice. There is no presumption in favour of the exemption of the few from the incidence of a general tax. The presumption is for equality and rather against the partiality which is involved in special exemptions; (see also In re Young page 61 per Lord Deas and page 62 per Lord Macmillan). In the present instance the Revenue Authorities discharged the onus which lay upon them by showing that the assessee is in receipt of income. When that has been established, Section 3 of the Act renders that income liable to taxation. It is for the assessee to prove that the income which he is in receipt of is exempted from taxation by the Act. For the purposes of Section 14 (1) what he has to show is (a) that he is member of a Hindu undivided family and (b) that he receives the income in question as a member of that family. The Commissioner of Income Tax states, "for the purposes of income tax which is tax on income, a family governed by the rule of primogeniture cannot be a joint family as the income is enjoyed by one particular member to the exclusion of others. In this case the assessee comes from a family governed by the primogeniture. Subject to this the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ily because he is member of the family. There are, indeed observations of RAMESAM J., in Commissioner of Income Tax, Madras v. Sri. Raja Vyricherla Narayana Gajapathi Raju Bahadur Garu which support this view. It has been contended that a sum received by an assessee because he is a member of an undivided family is on the same footing as a sum received as a member of the family within the meaning of Section 14 (1). In the judgment in that case there is no reference to other sections of the Act which in my opinion, have a bearing on the correct construction of these words and without considering which it is not possible to arrive at the true intention of the Legislature. Nor were the observations relied on necessary for the determination of the question referred to the High Court which was : "Whether the sum of Rs. 6,000 received as maintenance by the petitioner as a brother of the late Raja of Kurupam entitled under the law to receive maintenance out of the ancestral impartible estate of Kurupam is a sum received by him as a member of a Hindu undivided family within the meaning of Clause (1) of Section 14 of the Act." The question so framed pre-supposes that the sum in dispute....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n the two cases. To me it seems impossible to ascertain what is means in this section by these words without considering the scheme of the statute with respect to the taxation of Hindu undivided families. As was pointed out by Lord Herschell in Colquhoun v. Brooks, the Court is entitled and, indeed bound, when considering the terms of any provision in the statute, to consider any other parts of the Acts which throw light upon intention of the Legislature and which may serve to show that the particular provision ought not to be considered as it would be, if considered alone and apart from the rest of the Act. It has been shown that the general scheme of the Act is to tax all income which is not excluded from the operation of the Act by Section 4 (3) and not to tax in the hands of an assessee income which has accrued to him and which has already been taxed in the hands of a company or firm. The Act clearly contemplates that in the case of members of a joint Hindu family the unit of taxation shall be the family itself and not Hindu individual member, i.e., the entire joint income of the members of the family is taxable only in the hands of the family and no part of it is taxable....