C. KRISHNA PRASAD versus C.I.T. BANGALORE

Citation: [1975] 2 S.C.R. 709 · Decided: 12-11-1974 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: HANS RAJ KHANNA · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
n 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G. 
H 
C •. KRISHNA PR.ASAD 
v. 
C.I;T; BANGALoRE 
NDYembtr 12~ .. 1974. 
{H; R. KHANNA, .Ao C. GUPTA; JJ~] 
. ,lrldiai: Inca~. 111:11 Aci, 1922-Sec. 2(31).....;H/nd~· undivided famil;y.....;Whetlie; 
a smg/e unmarrlell· person can constitute an HUF •. · 
· 
· 
· 
· 
· 
The BS.leBSee-aJ>PeJiant, with ~ 
.. father and brother formed a ljUF upiO ~t; 
30, 1958 when there was a partition between them and: the a!sessee got- ~rtain 
house properties and .vacant s(ies. The ,Partitjon.w115.recognis~d by ti!~ D~part
ment. !!nd an orde~. u/s ~5,A of the Indian ·1ncom~-~l\X Act, J922 was PasSed re· 
cogmsmg the partition with effect from Nov. 1, 1958; 
· 
· 
0n the ctate ofJ.>a~ition·and during .the iieriod e~diils March 31, 1964. the 
assessee was unmarried, upto 1963-64, the assessee was assessed as an individual, 
b!lt for the Y~.1964-65,. the assessee filed. a .return. showing his.status as an.indi-
Vldual but in the course c;>f the assessment procee<lings for 1964'65, he claimed 
that he should be assessed in ·the st-atils :Of'a HUF.: 
· · 
· 
· 
The I.T.O. did ·not .a~cept .the .claim and held .that the assesseo's .1tatus was 
tliat of an individual. The order of the I.T.Q, was. affirmed on. appeal by the 
Appellate Asstt, Commissioner and the nib1111al; ·At the· insiance of the assenec, 
the following question was referred to the Hiah · Court. . 
· 
·"Whether. on· the facts and cl-ances .In .the case, ·etc, the. usealeO was 
rightly .asse&scd iii the status of an individual for th~ assessment yoar 1964-65.''. · 
The High Court" answered the question in"favour. of. the revenue .and ~ 
the appeal .before this Court. The main question .for decision is whether an un-
married male 1Iindu, on partition of a .jolnt Hindu family can l>e assessed in the 
status of a HUF even though no other person besides him is a member of the 
alleged fa~ly. . 
-· 
.. 
. 
Dismissing the appeal._ 
.. HELQ: (1) ~ection 4 of~ Act of 192~ ,pi:ovi~es f<?r the, ~arging.of ~ 
t-.ir:· Oil the· total !ncome of evecy person sub1eot to the cond.1tions prescn~ m 
that Section;· "Person" haS been defined in .SC:c. 2(31) of the Act an~ includes, 
inler a/la, an .individual al!d a HUF.; [7UDJ 
(2) A single person, lnale or fe~e; however, dqes not constitute a: famify. 
He or she •would rem~in, ·what ls 'inherent in ''the :Vecy nature Of thiJi&9,· ail lndf. 
vi dual, a lonely wayfarer lill · per chance , he or she finds· a mate.· . ·A family con-
sisting of a, sinpe individual is .a, contQKl~ttoa l.n terms. 
(7110) 
· · 
The word 'family' always signifies .a• group. Plurality of person's is· an easen· 
t!al attribute of a family •.• [711GJ 
.. 
. 
· 
(3) Ii is well settled that a Hittdu joint family co'mists of all IN'~ iu.eauy 
descended from a common ancestor ~ 
includea ·theit wive& and ~lf!
gbters. . A Hindu coparcenary ill a much narrower body thl:n tho joint ....... ,. 
It includes only those persons who acquire by birth an lntcreat in ·~· joint qr 
.cc>~ property. [711HJ 
· 
(:4) The exprcssio~ "Hindu undivlded family" in the Income tax Act . ii ~ 
·in the sense In Which a Hindu joint family is undentood under the. various IChoola 
of Hindu Law. Under the Hindu Law, it is not necessary 'that there mhlmt 1111 :a . 
male member. The ·joint family continues so long as the'Jrol'Crl¥ w chofwp 
originally of the joint Hindu family remains in the hands 
the Widows 
the 
memben of the family, and is not divided among them.· [712A-BJ 
· 
I 710 
SUPRF.ME COURT ltEPORTS 
[1975] 2 8.C.:l. 
( 5) The share which a coparcener obtains on partition of ancestral property 
is ancestral property as regard bis male !ssue._ As regai;d! other .relati~ns, it is 
separate property and if the copercener dieK without leaving male issue, 1t p;lMC8 
to his heirs by succession. (Mulla'1 Princi1•lt1 of Hindu I.Dw 14th Ed. pase 272 
referred to.) [712D·E) 
( 6) In view of the above, it cannot be a~nied that the appellant wll!I. the ab· 
solute owner of the property which fell to hlS s~are as a result of part1ti_on and 
he could deal with his property in any way he hk.ed. In order to detel1D1Jle the 
statu11 of the asiresaee for tile purpoae of income-tax, one has to look to the rea-
lities as they e1;ist at the time of assessment and it would not be correct to prc1j'ect 
into the matter future possibilities which might or might not .mate~iali_ee_. In !ht 
instant case, there can hardly be any doubt that the asseasee IS an md1v1dl1&1 and 
not 11 family. · [7120-H]
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.