| Case ID |
304fa97f-7347-44e9-988a-c0b1a1143f7a |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
WRIT PETITION Nos. 322 AND 323 OF 1959 |
| Decision Date |
Sep 20, 1961 |
| Hearing Date |
Sep 20, 1961 |
| Decision |
The court held that in the case of a Hindu undivided family, the family is the legal entity regarded as the assessee. The income subject to tax is that of the family as a whole, not that of individual members. Therefore, if tax is assessed on the family income for an assessment year, it can be recovered from the family and its properties, even if partition of family property occurred after the assessment. The court emphasized that individual members cannot evade tax liability through partition when a debt is owed by the family. The ruling clarified that the tax payable is recoverable from the family properties in the hands of any member, underscoring the enduring liability of family members for tax debts incurred prior to any partition. |
| Summary |
This case revolves around the assessment of tax on a Hindu undivided family (HUF) for the year 1952-53, where the Income Tax Officer assessed the tax despite claims of partition among family members. The court ruled that the family remains a single legal entity for tax purposes, allowing recovery of tax from family properties even after partition. This decision reinforces the principle that tax liabilities incurred by an HUF continue to bind individual members, and partition does not absolve them of these debts. The court's interpretation of the Income-tax Act provides clarity on the obligations of family members in tax matters, highlighting the need for compliance even post-partition. The precedent set here is critical for understanding tax liabilities of HUFs and the applicability of Hindu law principles regarding family debts. |
| Court |
Mysore High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
Not available
|
| Judges |
A.R. Somnath Iyer,
B. M. Kalagate
|
| Lawyers |
K. Srinivasan,
D.M. Chandrasekhar
|
| Petitioners |
Esthuri Aswathaiah
|
| Respondents |
Income Tax Officer
|
| Citations |
1963 SLD 45,
(1963) 49 ITR 977
|
| Other Citations |
Pannalal v. Mst. Naraini [1952] SCR 544,
Sir Sundar Singh Majithia v. CIT [1942] 10 ITR 457 (P.C.),
Bankey Lal v. Durga Prasad AIR 1931 All. 512,
Lakhmichand Baijnath v. CIT [1959] 35 ITR 416 (SC),
Prahlad Rai Bairoliya v. UOI [1956] 30 ITR 678 (Pat.)
|
| Laws Involved |
Income-tax Act, 1961
|
| Sections |
171,
222
|