COMMISSIONER OF EXPENDITURE-TAX, GUJARAT, AHMEDABAD versus DARSHAN SURENDRA PAREKH

Citation: [1968] 2 S.C.R. 589 · Decided: 12-12-1967 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.C. SHAH · Disposal: Order modified

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

589 
A 
COMMISSIONER 
OF EXPENDITURE-TAX, GUJARAT, 
AHMED ABAD 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
n 
v. 
DARSHAN SURENDRA PAREKH 
December 12, 1967 
[J. C. SHAH, V. RAMASWAMI AND V. BHARGAVA, JJ.] 
Expenditure Tax Act (29' of 1957), ss. 2(g) and 4-Assessee a Hindu 
undivided family-Karta, if dependant of assessee-Expenditure by trus· 
t~s on behalf qf children of karta-Whether liable lo be included under 
1. 4(1) or (II). 
Section. 4(i) of the Expenditure Tax Act, 1957, is intended to include 
ill the taxable expenditure of an 
asse11see, the 
expenditure 
incurred 
directly or indirectly by a person other than tho asseasee for dischargina· 
any obligation of the assessee, or for the personal requirement of 
the 
aasessee or of any of the assessee's dependants, which, but for the ex. 
penditure having been incurred by th~t other person would have been 
incurred by the assessee; and, s. 4(ii) is intended to include any expendi· 
ture incurred by any dependant of the assessee for the benefit of the 
assessee or of any of his dependants out of any settlement on trust or 
other source made or created by the assessee. 
A Hindu, his children by his first wife, his second wife, and children 
by her, formed a Hindu undivided family, with :himself as the karta. By 
deeds of trust he settled certain assets belonging to the joint family in· 
favour of the children by the first wife and appointed trustees to manage 
the assets, to collect the income and to defray the expenses of the child-
ren. 
The karta was also possessed of separate property. 
Tn computing 
the taxable expenditure of the assessee-family for the years 1958-59 and 
1959-60, under the Expenditure-Tax Aot, the department included two 
items : (I ) the expenditure incurred by the karta, out of his own separate-
property for his own purposes; and (2) the sum spent out of the trust 
estate for the children. On a reference. the High Court b.eld that the two· 
items were not chargeable to tax. 
In appeal to this C"..ourt it was contended that the first item was liable 
to be included in the expenditure of the assessee family under s. 4(i) 
because, the karta in a Hindu undi\ided family is a 'dependant' and the 
expenditure incurred was by a person other than the assessee for the 
personal requirement of a 'dependant' and the family would have been 
liable to meet the expenditure if it were not incurred by the Karta; and 
the second, either under s. 4(i) or (ii). 
HELD : (I) The expression 'other member of the family' in s. 2(g) 
(ii)(b) does not include a CQl'arcener : 
it means wives arid unmarried 
daughters of coparceners and widows of the family. A kart a, is expresaly 
excluded' from cl. (a) and is not within the expression 'other member of 
the family' in cl. (b). 
Therefore, othe karta is not a 'dependant'. The 
facts that when a Tiarta incurs expenditure fur the coparceners or other 
members out of his separate estate the expenditure ia liable to be included 
in the taxable expenditure of ·the family. and that the expenditure incurred 
by a coparcener or other member of family out of' his separate pi-operty 
in respect of the obligations of the family, or for the personal require-
ments of the coparceners or other members of the family, is also liable to 
SUPRF.MF. COURT Rl'l'ORTS 
(1%8] 2 S.C.R. 
he included in the taxahle expcnjiturc of the fam,ly, are not ~rounds for 
attributing to the c:-:pression 'dependant' a wholly arlificial n1eaning diflc· 
rent fron1 its statutory definition. ·1nerc i'i
0 
norhin~ in the scheme of the 
Act which suggests that the cxprc5'ion 'dependant' in s. 4( I) of the Act 
was used in a sense different from that of the 
definition. 
No rule of 
intcrpro:atian permits, for the purpose of s. 4(i) of the Act. thl' application 
of tJ1c statutory definition of 'dependant' to f)ring \\'ithin the- net of taxa-
tion, expenditure incurred for coparccncrs other than the karta, and of 
a special meaning of that expression. inconsistent alike with the personal 
law of the parties and the statutory defmition, to hring v,:jthin the net 
of taxation, the expenditure for the karta. 
The Court cannot 
attribute 
two different meanings to a single expression in its application to t\\·o 
different situations contemplated by a single clause. [593 H; 594 C-D, F; 
595 C-E; 596 B-C] 
For the year 1959'-60, s.4(i) was amended by the deletion of the words 
'which but for the expenditure having been incurred by that other person. 
would have been incurred by the assessee

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.