T. S. SRINIVASAN versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MADRAS

Citation: [1966] 2 S.C.R. 755 · Decided: 29-11-1965 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. SUBBA RAO · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

• 
• 
• 
• 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
T. S. SRINIVASAN 
v . 
COMMISSIONER OF IJ."'COME TAX, MADRAS 
November 29, 1965 
[K. SuBBA RAo, J. C. SHAH AND S. M. SIKRI, JJ.] 
/l!come- Tax Act, 
1922, s. 3-Hindu 
undivided 
family-Whether· 
comes into being on conception of son or on birth. 
A son was born to the assessee, a Hindu, on December 11, 1952, and 
it was common ground that the conception of the child must have taken 
place sometime in March 1952. For the 
assessment 
year 
1953-54 
(accounting year April 1, 1952 to March 31,, 1953) the assessee claimed 
that certain income received by him should be assessed as the income 
of a Hindu undivided family, which, according to him had come into 
existence in or about March 1952 when the son was conceived. The 
Income Tax Officer however recognised the family as a Hindu undivided 
family only from the date of the birth of the child. This view was up-
held by the appellate authorities and the High Court, upon a reference,. 
also answered the question against the assessee. 
It was contended on behalf of the assessee that under the Income-tax 
Act, a Hindu undivided family 
is a separate unit and in determining· 
whether a Hindu undivided family 
exists or not, and if it exists, from 
what date it has come into being, regard must be had to the p·rinciples. 
of Hindu 'Law, for the Act does not lay down any principles on this. 
point; that it is well settled and it is a 
substantive rule of Hindu Law 
that a son conceived has the same rights of property as a living son and' 
that a joint Hindu family comes into existence from the date the son is 
conceived. 
HELD : The doctrine of Hindu Law that a son conceived is equal in. 
many respects to a son actually in existence is not of universal applica-
tion and it applies mainly for the purpose of determining the rights of" 
property and safeguarding such rights of the son. This 
doctrine does 
not fit in with the scheme of the Income Tax Act and it could not have· 
been the intention of the legislature to have 
incorporated this spechtl' 
doctrine into the Act. (758 F-OJ 
In .t~e pr~sent_ case,. no rights of the son 
would be affected by not 
recognismg his existence for the purposes of s. 3 of the Act till he was 
actually born. 
Income-tax is a liability and it could not have been the· 
intention of the legislature to impose a liability on unborn persons. (760 
BJ 
C.B.C. Deshmukh v. I. Mal/apa Chanbassappa A.LR. (1964) S.C. 510; 
referred to. 
Even if a Hindu undivided family was in existence towards the end· 
of the accounting year, the whole income 
received or accrued in the 
accounting year did not thereby become the assessable income of the· 
Hindu undivided family; till the child was born, 
the income was 
the 
H 
assessee's income. [760 DJ 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : 
Civil Appeal No. 853 of 
1964. 
'756 
SUPREME 
COURT 
REPORTS 
(1966] 2 S.C.R. 
Appeal .from the Judgment and Order dated the 9th August, 
A 
1961 of the Madras High Court in Case Referred No. 86 of 
1957. 
A. V. Viswanatha Sastri, S. Swaminathan and R. Gopa/a-
krishnan, for the appellant. 
C. K. Daphtary, Attorney-General, Gopal Singh, B. R. G. K. 
B 
Achar and R. N. Sachthey, for the respondent. 
' 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Sikri, J. This appeal, by certificate of the High Court of 
Madras, is directed against its judgment in a reference made to it c 
under s. 66(1) of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922, hereinafter 
referred to as the Act, by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 
Madras. 
The question referred to was "whether the assessment 
·Of the income of the assessee, other than his salary in the hands 
of the assessee, as an individual and not as a Hindu undivided 
family till 1 lth December, 1952, for the assessment year 1953-54 D 
is valid." 
The question arose out of the following facts. The appellant, 
.hereinafter referred to as the assessee, is the youngest son of T. V . 
. Sundaram Ayyangar, who was the Karta of a Hindu undivided 
family consisting of a number of persons. There was a partial 
E 
partition of the above family and 150 shares of Rs. l,000 each 
in T. V. Sundaram Iyengar and sons Limited, a private limited· 
.,company, were divided equally among the coparceners, 
the 
.assessee getting 25 shares of the value of 25,000. 
With the 
. aforesaid shares as nucleus, the assessee 
acquired 
house-
properties, shares and deposits up to March 31, 1952. 
As the 
F 
assessee was also the Service Manager of the aforesaid private 

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