Law:

Section:

ORDER The question referred under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for our opinion is : "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee was rightly assessed in the status of an individual for the assessment year 1964-65?" Briefly stated the facts are: One Krishnaswamy Naidu along with his two sons, C. Krishna Prasad (the assessee) and C. Krishna Kumar, formed a Hindu undivided family upto October 30, 1958, when there was a partition between Krishnaswamy Naidu and his two sons. In the said partition, the assessee got some house properties and vacant sites. The partition was recognised by the department and an order under section 25A of the Income-tax Act, 1922, was passed recognising the partition as from November 1, 1958. On the date of partition and also during the relevant period, i.e. , the year ending on March 31, 1964, the assessee was unmarried. The assessee filed a return for the assessment year 1964-65 showing his status as an individual. Up to the assessment year 1963-64, the assessee was assessed in the status of an individual. However, in the course of the assessment proceedings for the assessment year 1964-65, the assessee claimed that he should be assessed in the status of a Hindu undivided family. The Income-tax Officer did not accept the claim of the assessee and he held that the status of the assessee is that of an individual. On appeal, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner affirmed the order of the Income-tax Officer. Further appeal to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal also failed. At the instance of the assessee, the Tribunal has referred the above question of law for our opinion. In order to constitute a Hindu undivided family, it is not necessary that there must be at least two male members. A coparcener with his wife and unmarried daughters can constitute a Hindu undivided family as held by the Supreme Court in Gowli Buddanna v. Commissioner of Income-tax [1966] 60 ITR 293 (SC). In the said decision, the Supreme Court followed the decision of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in Attorney-General of Ceylon v. Arunachalam Chettiar [1958] 34 ITR (ED) 42. The same view was taken under 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