| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1973 SLG 693 1973 SLD 693 (1973) 92 ITR 470 |
Allahabad High Court
WT REFERENCE No. 378 OF 1970, NOVEMBER 13, 1972
SATISH CHANDRA AND N.D. OJHA, JJ.
R.K. Gulati for the Applicant. Dr. R.R. Misra for the
Respondent
WT REFERENCE No. 378 OF 1970, NOVEMBER 13, 1972
SATISH CHANDRA AND N.D. OJHA, JJ.
R.K. Gulati for the Applicant. Dr. R.R. Misra for the
Respondent
Ramji Mehrotra
v.
Commissioner of Wealth Tax
Law:
Section:
Section 4 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Hindu undivided family - Assessable as - Assessment year 1966-67 - A partition of HUF took place with result that assessee became separated from all other members of family - He was a bachelor and, thus, became exclusive owner of properties allotted to him - In return filed by him, he claimed his status that of a HUF - ITO, however, assessed him in status of individual - AAC as well as Tribunal upheld ITO's order - Whether since assessee did not have any other person, male or female, as a member of his family, he being a sole coparcener could not be deemed to constitute HUF - Held, yes - Whether, therefore, he was rightly assessed in status of individual - Held, yes FACTS The assessee was a member of HUF along with his father, mother, a brother and an uncle and aunt and four cousins. In 1951, there was a partial partition in the family at which a sum of five lakhs of rupees was divided between some of the members of the family. In 1953 another partial partition took place in the family, with the result that the assessee became separated from all the other members of the family. He was a bachelor. He became the exclusive owner of the properties allotted to him at the partition. For the assessment year 1966-67, the assessee claimed in the return filed by him that his status was that of HUF. The ITO did not accept this contention. He held that the assessee being the sole coparcener he did not constitute a HUF. He assessed him in the status of an individual. This view was affirmed by the AAC. The assessee failed before the Tribunal as well. On reference : HELD It is settled law that an individual by himself cannot constitute a HUF. There must be more than one person before a HUF can come into existence. It is not necessary that the two members should both be males. The HUF can validly consist of male with a female, like a husband and wife, or a person with his unmarried daughter. A HUF can consist of females as well, provided at least one of the female members is capable of adding a male member to the family. For instance a HUF can consist of a widow with a right of adoption and her unmarried daughter. In such a case the…
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492