THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, MADHYA PRADESH AND BHOPAL versus SODRA DEVI

Citation: [1958] 1 S.C.R. 1 · Decided: 17-05-1957 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: NATWARLAL HARILAL BHAGWATI · 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)

-
-
.. ' 
.. • 
THE SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX; 
MADHYA PRADESH AND BHOPAL 
v. 
SODRA DEVI 
(with connected appeal) 
(BHAGWATI, S. K. DAS and J. L. KAPUR JJ.) 
Income-tax-Computation of total lncome-'individual', Mean-
ing of-Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (X of 1922), as amended by the 
Indian Income-tax (Amendment) Act, 1937 (IV of 1937), s. 16(3) . 
The common question of Jaw for determination in these two 
appeals was whether the word 'individual' in s. 16(3) of the 
Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, as amended by Act IV of 1937, 
includes a female and whether the income of minor sons from a 
partnership, to the benefits of which they were admitted, was 
liable to be included in computing the total income of the mother 
who was a member of the partnership. 
.. 
Held, (Per Bhagwati and Kapur JJ., S. K. Das J. dissenting} 
.. 
that the question must be answered in the negative. 
The word 'individual' oc«urring in s. 16(3) of the Indian 
Income-tax Act, as amended by Act IV of 1937, means only a male 
and does not include a female. 
Shrimati Chanda Devi v. The Commissioner of Income-tax, 
(1950) 18 J.T.R. 1944 and Musta Quima Begum, In re, 1(953) 23 
I.T.R. 345, disapproved. 
. 
Where the Legislature uses ambiguous language in enacting 
a statute, as. it has undoubtedly done in the instant case, recourse 
must necessarily be had, for a clarification of such ambiguity, to 
the pre-existing state of the Jaw in order to see what defect or 
mischief therein was being sought to be remedied, the remedy that 
was prescribed by the statute and the reason for it. 
Bengal Immunity Company Limited v. The State of Bihar, 
(1955) 2 S.C.R. 603, Thomson v. Lord C/anmorris, (1900) I Cb. D. 
718 and Eastman Photographic Materials Company v. Comptroller 
General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks, (1898) A.C. 
571, 
relied on. 
A reference to the Income-Tax Enquiry Report, 1936, and the 
Statement of objects and reasons that led to the passing of the 
Indian Income-tax (Amendment) Act -IV of 1937 makes it clear 
beyond doubt that the mischief the Legislature was seeking to 
remedy was one that resulted from a husband entering into a 
1957 
May 17 
1957 
The Commissioner 
of Income-tax, 
MadhFtJ Pardesh 
and Bhopal 
v. 
Sodra Devi 
Bhagwati J. 
2 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1958] 
nominal partnership with his wife or a father admitting his minor 
children to the benefits of a partnership, and the possibility of a 
mother doing so was not even thought of. 
· 
Per S. K. Das J.-There is no ambiguity in s. 16(3) of the 
Indian Income-Tax Act, as amended by Act JV of 1937, and, read 
in the context of the other provisions of the Act and construed as 
a whole, it clearly indicates that the Legislature used the word 
'individual' in that sub-section in its ordinary connotation to 
mean both a male and a fema1e person. 
Even if, on the assumption that there is ambiguity in the 
phraseology used in the sub-section, reference is made to the 
Income-Tax Enquiry Report, 1936, and the Statement of objects 
and reasons of the Amending Act IV of 1937 for the limited 
purpose for which it is permissible to do so, they disclose nothing 
concerning the policy adopted by the Legislature or the object 
the statute was intended to accomplish 
that makes any other 
meaning inevitable. The recommendations made by the Report 
were not fully 
accepted by the Legislature and it cannot be a 
reliable guide and the use of the word 'parent' in the Statement 
clearly shows that the mischief envisaged was not confined to the 
father alone. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : 
Civil Appeals 
Nos. 322 and 25 of 1955. 
Appeal from the judgment and order dated April 13, 
1954, of the Nagpur High Court in Miscellaneous Civil 
Case No. 71 of 1956 and appeal from the judgment 
and order dated August 26, 1952, of the Punjab High 
Court in Civil Reference No. 11 of 1952. 
C. K. Daphtary, Solicitor-General of India, G. N. 
Joshi and R. H. Dhebar, for the appellant in C.A. No. 
322 of 1955 and respondent in C.A. No. 25 of 1955. 
R. J. Kolah, J. B. Dadachanji, S. N. Andley and 
Rameshwar Nath, for the respondent in C.A. No. 322 
of 1955. 
G. S. Pathak and M. L. Kapur, for the appellant in 
C.A. No. 25 of 1955. 
1957. May 17. 
The Judgment of Bhagwati and 
J. L. Kapur JJ. was delivered by Bhagwati J. S. K. 
Das J. derlivered a separate judgment. 
BHAGWATI J.-These two appeals with certificates 
under Section 66A(2) of the Indian Income-Tax Act 
(hereinafter referre
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.