| Case ID |
1f7a2ded-9c03-4dc3-98ce-ae202c24debd |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
WT REFERENCE No. 378 OF 1970 |
| Decision Date |
Nov 13, 1972 |
| Hearing Date |
|
| Decision |
The court held that the assessee, being a sole coparcener without any other member in the family, could not be deemed to constitute a Hindu undivided family (HUF). Therefore, the assessment of the assessee as an individual was upheld. The court affirmed that an individual cannot constitute a HUF by himself, emphasizing the necessity of having more than one person for the existence of an HUF. The decision reinforced the principle that a HUF can include females and that the family status is retained as long as at least one other member is present. |
| Summary |
In the landmark case of Ramji Mehrotra v. Commissioner of Wealth Tax, the Allahabad High Court examined the status of a Hindu undivided family (HUF) in relation to the Income-tax Act, 1961. The case revolved around the assessment year 1966-67, where Ramji Mehrotra, the assessee, claimed his status as an HUF after a partition within the family. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) rejected this claim, stating that as a sole coparcener, Mehrotra could not constitute an HUF, leading to his assessment as an individual. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner (AAC) and the Tribunal upheld the ITO's decision. The High Court's ruling clarified that for an HUF to exist, there must be more than one member, and emphasized that an individual alone does not meet the criteria for an HUF. This decision is significant in understanding the legal framework surrounding HUFs in India, particularly in the context of tax assessments. It highlights the importance of having multiple members in a family unit for the recognition of HUF status, thus impacting future tax implications for individuals claiming HUF status. The case also references various precedents that further elucidate the criteria for HUF recognition and the implications of partition within family structures. Keywords: Hindu undivided family, income tax, wealth tax, partition, coparcener, assessment. |
| Court |
Allahabad High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
Not available
|
| Judges |
Satish Chandra,
N.D. Ojha
|
| Lawyers |
R.K. Gulati,
Dr. R.R. Misra
|
| Petitioners |
Ramji Mehrotra
|
| Respondents |
Commissioner of Wealth Tax
|
| Citations |
1973 SLD 693 = (1973) 92 ITR 470
|
| Other Citations |
Gowli Buddanna v. CIT [1966] 60 ITR 293 (SC),
N.V. Narendranath v. CWT [1969] 74 ITR 190 (SC),
T. S. Srinivasan v. CIT [1966] 60 ITR 36 (SC),
Srinivasa Krishnarao Kango v. Narayan Devji Kango AIR 1954 SC 379,
C. Krishna Prasad v. CIT [1970] 75 ITR 526 (Mys.),
K.R. Ramachandra Rao v. CWT [1963] 48 ITR 959 (Mad.)
|
| Laws Involved |
Income-tax Act, 1961
|
| Sections |
4
|