THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUCKNOW versus MAHARANI RAJ LAXMI DEVI

Citation: [1997] 1 S.C.R. 1172 · Decided: 11-02-1997 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.C. AGRAWAL, K.S. PARIPOORNAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, 
LUCKNOW 
v. 
MAHARANI RAJ LAXMI DEVI 
B 
FEBRUARY 11, 1997 
I 
. 
(S.C. AG~AWAL AND K.S. PARIPOORNAN, JJ.] 
Income Tax Act, 1961 : Section 171( 1). 
C 
Income Tax--HUF-AYs. 1966-67 to 1970-71--Partition of 
HUF-Diminution of HUF assets-After death of the karta, HUF comprises 
of his widow and minor son--The said minor son inherited I/6th of the share 
of the deceased in HUF property under S.6 of Hindu SuccessionAct-Held 
: Partition of HUF for the purpose of assessment governed by S.171 (1) of 
the Income Tax Act and not by Hindu Succession Act-In absence of 
D compliance with S.171(1) of the Income Tax Act, the I/6th income of minor 
" ~-
son could not be excluded in computing HUF's income-S.6 of Hindu 
Succession Act would govern rights of parties only and not the assess-
ment-flindu Law-Hindu Succession Act, 1956, S.6. 
E 
The assessee was being assessed as an individual up to and including 
the Assessment Year 1964-65. The assessee adopted a minor as his son. 
After the said adoption the status of the assessee was taken as that of the 
Hindu Undivided Family (HUF). After the death of the assessee, the HUF 
comprised of his widow as the karta and the minor son. The said minor 
son inherited 1/6th of the share of the deceased in the HUF property under 
F Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. For the assessment years 
1966-67 to 1970-71 the respondent-assessee filed returns after excluding 
the 1/6th share belonging to the minor son. 
The Income Tax Officer (ITO) held that the Income Tax Act was a 
separate, distinct and complete statute in itself and under the Act a change 
G in HUF status could b~ effected only by claiming partition either partial 
or complete and that such partition could become operative if a claim of 
partition had been preferred and after examining the evidence produced, 
an order under Section 171 accepting the claim of partition had been 
accepted by the ITO, and that in the case of the assessee both the elements 
H were missing. The ITO, therefore, held that the assessee HUF continued 
1172 
' 
AUDL COMMNR OF INCOME TAX, LUCKNOW v. MAHARANI RAJ LAXMIDEVI 1173 
..., 
to· be as it was before. However, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal A 
reversed the said view and held that the case of the assessee was not of a 
partition as contemplated in Section 171 and, therefore, no claim was 
necessary and absence of an order under Sectionl 71 did not mean that the 
whole estate should be deemed to belong to the assessee HUF. The 
Tribunal further held that assuming that the assessee's case came under B 
Section 171 the estate of the assessee HUF having been diminished in 
-
terms of Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 but with regard to 
-1· 
which an order accepting the claim for partial partition had not been 
made, the income from such property could not be included in the com-
putation of the income of the HUF. The High Court answered the reference 
in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. Hence this appeal. 
c 
' 
. 
Allowing this appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1. It is no doubt true that in Kallomal Tapeswari Prasad and 
Smt. N.K Sarada Thampatty this Court was dealing with cases of partial D 
"'· 
partition by way of voluntary act of the parties which was directly covered 
by Section 171 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. ButR.B. Tunki Sah Baidyanath 
Pd. w11s a ·case where a claim was made on the basis of statute, viz., the 
provisions of Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, and it was 
held that Section 171 of the Income Tax Act would govern the matter 
insofar as income tax law is concerned. For the same reason, though for E 
the purpose of Hindu Undivided Family, Section 6 of the Hindu Succession 
Act would govern the rights of parties but insofar as income tax law is 
concerned the matter has to be governed by Section 171(1) of the Income 
'f 
Tax Act. Hence, the l/6th income pertaining to the minor son could not be 
-
excluded in computing the Hindu Undivided Family's income. [1180-C-D] 
F 
Kalloomal Tapeswari Prasad (HUF) v. CIT, 1973 Tax law Reports 
697; ITO v. Smt. N.K Sarada Thampatty, (1991) 187 ITR 696 and R.B. Tunki 
Sah Baidyanath Pd. v. CIT, (1995) 212 ITR, relied on. 
A. Kannan Chetty v. CIT, (1963) 50 ITR 601 (Mad), held overruled G 
by Kallomal Tapeswari Prasad (HUF) v. CIT, 1973 Tax Law Reports 697 
-
"Y 
and Smt. N.K. Sarada Thampatty (1991) 187 ITR 696. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeals Nos
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.