N. V. NARENDRANATH versus COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX, ANDHRA PRADESH, HYDERABAD

Citation: [1969] 3 S.C.R. 882 · Decided: 07-03-1969 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.C. SHAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

882 
N. y. NARENDRANATH 
v. 
COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX, ANDHRA PRADESH, 
HYDERABAD 
March 7, 1969 
(J. C. SHAH, V. RAMASWAMI AND A. N. GROVER, JJ.j 
Wel4.Jth Tax Act, '1957, section 3-Family consisting of sole surviving 
. Hindu coparcener, his wife and daughters, whether assessable as Hindu 
Undivided Family or as individual-Assessee receiving 
property 
from 
r.oparcenary on partition-Character of. 
In respect of his assessment to wealth tax for the assessment years 
1957-58, 1958-59 and 1959-60, the appellant filed returns in the status 
,of a Hindu Undivided Family. His family at the material time consisted 
of himself, his wife and two minor daughte'rs. 
Jbe appellant claimed to 
be assessed in. the status of a Hindu Undivided Family inasmuch as the 
wealth returned consisted of ancestral property received or deemed to 
have been received by him on Partition with his father and b1others. The 
Wealth Tax Officer did not accept the contention of the appellant and 
assessed him as an individu.al. 
The Appellate 
Assistant Commissioner 
confirmed this view. 
However, the Appellate Tribunal 
held 
that the 
appellant should be assessed in the status of Hindu Undivided Family 
but the High Court, upon a referen~, disagreed with the view of the 
Appellate Tribunal and held that as the appellant family did not have aay 
other male coparcener, all the assets forming the ·subject matter of the 
returns filed by the appellant belonged to him as an individual and not 
to a Hindu Undivided Family. 
On appeal to this Court, 
HELD : Allowing the appeal : 
The status of the appellant was rightly determined as that of a Hindu 
Undivided Family by the Appellate Tribunal. 
The 
expression 
"Hindu 
Undivided Family" in the Wealth Tax Act is used in the sense in which 
a Hindu joint family is understood in the personal law of Hindus. Under 
the Hindu system of law a joint family may consist of a single 
male 
member and his wife and daughters and there is nothing in the scheme 
of the Wealth Tax Act to suggest that a Hindu Undivided Family as an 
assessable unit must consist of at least two male members. [886 C] 
Under s. 3 of the Wealth Tax Act not a Hindu coparcenary but a 
Hindu Undhided Family is one of the assessable legal entities. A Hindu 
joint family consists of all persons lineally descended from a common an· 
cestor, and includes their wives 
and 
unma'rried 
daughters. A 
Hindu 
coparcenary is a much narrower body than the Hindu joint family; it in-
cludes only those persons who acquire by birth an interest in the joint 
or coparcenary property, these being the sons, grand-sons and great grand-
sons of the holder of the joint property for the time bein2. [885 F-H] 
Kalyanji Vitholdas v. Commissioner of Income Tax, 
5 
Commissioner of Income Tex v. Gomedalli Lakshminara,van 
T.R. 367 considered. 
I.T.R. 90, 
[1935] 
3 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
NARENDRANATH v. c.W.T. (Ramaswami, !.) 
88 3 
Commissioner of Income Tax v. A. P. Swam.v Gomedalli'. 5 l.T.R. 
416, Attorney General of Ceylon v. A.R. Arunachal/am Chettwr [1957] 
A.C. 540, Gowali Buddanna's [1960] 6 1.T.R. 203 referred to. 
T. s. Srinivasan v. Commissioner of Income lax 60, l.T.R. 36 !tstin-
guished. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeals Nos. 1477 
to 1479 of 1968. 
Appeals from the judgment and order dated November 30, 
1964 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Case Referred No. 49 
of 1962. 
s. T. Desai and K. Jayaram, for the appellant (in aH the 
appeals). 
D. Narsaraju, G. C. Sharma, R. N. Sachthey and B. D. Sharma, 
for the respondent (in all the appeals). 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Ramaswami, J. 
These appeals are brought by certificate 
from the judgment of the Andhra. Pradesh High Court, dated 
30th November, 1964 in Reference Case No. 49 of 1962. 
N. V. Rangarao; the father of the appellant, was the holder 
of an impartible estate called the "Munagala Estate" 
in 
the 
Krishna District in the State of Andhra Pradesh. 
This estate 
was abolished under the Madras Estates (Abolition and Con-
version into Ryotwari) Act, 1948, 
and 
compensation 
under 
section 45 of the Act was paid severally to the appellant, his 
father and his brothers. Other properties belonging to the joint 
family of the appellant, his father and brothers were also parti-
tioned between them from time to time. 
The assets forming the 
subject of reference to the High Court consisted of investments 
made from the compensation amount received b

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