My client took his share on a partition and is now the only member — unmarried, no wife, no children. He wants to file as an HUF because the property he received is ancestral. Can he?
No. The Supreme Court held that a single person, male or female, does not constitute a family, and that an assessment in the status of a Hindu undivided family can be made only when there are two or more members. "Family" connotes a group of people related by blood or marriage; plurality of persons is an essential attribute of a family; and s.2(31) treats a Hindu undivided family as an entity distinct and different from an individual. The appeal was dismissed with costs and the assessee remained assessable as an individual.
Decided by the Supreme Court (H.R. Khanna J and A.C. Gupta J (judgment delivered by H.R. Khanna J)) on 1974-11-12, reported as AIR 1975 SC 498; [1974] 97 ITR 493 (SC); (1975) 1 SCC 160; [1975] 2 SCR 709. It bears on section 2(31), section 4, section 256(1), section 25A of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 of the Income Tax Act 1961, in Assessment & Scrutiny and How Tax Law Is Read matters.
This is the answer to the sole-surviving-coparcener claim, and it must be read with two qualifications that the judgment itself supplies. First, the Court rejected in terms the wider proposition that there must be at least TWO MALE members: "Under Hindu law a joint family may consist of a single male member and widows of deceased male members", and the Court cited its own decision in CIT v. Ram Ar. Ar. Veerappa Chettiar for the proposition that it is not predicated of a Hindu joint family that there must be a male member, so that so long as the property that was originally the joint family's remains in the hands of the widows of the members and is undivided, the joint family continues. The requirement is plurality of MEMBERS, not plurality of males. Second, the Court decided the status on the facts as they stood: there was admittedly no female member in existence entitled to maintenance from the property or capable of adopting a son to a deceased coparcener, and the Court refused to project future possibilities — an adoption or a marriage that might or might not happen — into the determination of status. The corollary is that the answer changes the moment a second member exists, which is why this decision and N.V. Narendranath v. CWT (a coparcener with a wife and two minor daughters, held assessable as a Hindu undivided family) sit together rather than in conflict. Note also the property-law observation the Court made and relied on: the share a coparcener obtains on partition is ancestral only as regards his male issue, and a sole surviving coparcener may dispose of the coparcenary property as if it were his separate property.
Binding on every court and authority in India.
Read aloud by your device. Press again to stop.
C. Krishna Prasad, his father Krishnaswami Naidu and his brother C. Krishna Kumar formed a Hindu undivided family until 30 October 1958, when there was a partition between the father and his two sons. On that partition the assessee received house properties and vacant sites, and the partition was recognised by the department by an order under s.25A of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 with effect from 1 November 1958. On the date of the partition and throughout the year ending 31 March 1964 the assessee was unmarried. Up to 1963-64 he had been assessed as an individual and for the assessment year 1964-65 he filed his return showing his status as an individual, but during the assessment proceedings he claimed to be assessed as a Hindu undivided family. The Income-tax Officer rejected the claim, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Appellate Tribunal affirmed, and on a reference under s.256(1) the Mysore High Court answered the question — whether the assessee was rightly assessed in the status of an individual for 1964-65 — in the affirmative and against him. He appealed on certificate. It was admitted that there was no female member in existence entitled to maintenance from the property or capable of adopting a son to a deceased coparcener.
The appeal was dismissed with costs (para 11). An unmarried male Hindu who takes his share on a partition and has no other person as a member of the alleged family cannot be assessed in the status of a Hindu undivided family. "Family" connotes a group of people related by blood or marriage and always signifies a group; plurality of persons is an essential attribute of a family; a single person, male or female, does not constitute a family; and a family consisting of a single individual is a contradiction in terms. Section 2(31) treats a Hindu undivided family as an entity distinct and different from an individual and that difference must be kept in view. An assessment in the status of a Hindu undivided family can be made only when there are two or more members of the family (paras 6 and 7).
The Court began from s.4, which charges tax on the total income of every person, and s.2(31), which defines "person" to include both an individual and a Hindu undivided family, and identified the fallacy in the assessee's case as the proposition that a single individual can constitute a Hindu undivided family (para 6). It reasoned from the ordinary meaning of "family" — the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary definition and Aristotle's Politics — that the word always signifies a group, so that plurality of persons is an essential attribute (para 6). It then rejected the converse proposition that there must be at least two MALE members, noting that under Hindu law a joint family may consist of a single male member and the widows of deceased male members, that the expression "Hindu undivided family" in the Income-tax Act is used in the sense in which a Hindu joint family is understood under the schools of Hindu law, and that in CIT v. Ram Ar. Ar. Veerappa Chettiar the Court had held that a joint family continues so long as the property originally of the joint family remains undivided in the hands of the widows; what follows is that assessment as a Hindu undivided family can be made only where there are two or more members (para 7). On the facts the Court held that the appellant was the absolute owner of what fell to his share, that there was no female member entitled to maintenance or capable of adopting, and that status must be determined by looking to the realities as they exist rather than by projecting future possibilities, which would be speculation (para 8). The reliance placed on Anant Bhikappa Patil v. Shankar Ramchandra Patil was rejected: that case concerned a widow's power to adopt after the death of a sole surviving coparcener and expressed no opinion on whether one individual can constitute a Hindu undivided family; and because an adopted son's rights relate back to the adoptive father's death, Anant must be deemed to have existed as Bhikappa's son from 1905, so Gangabai could not be regarded as the sole member of the family in the years 1917 to 1930 (paras 9 and 10).
Plurality of persons is an essential attribute of a family. A single person, male or female, does not constitute a family.
Upload it and we will read it, work out your deadline and draft the reply. A CA reviews before anything is filed.
Handle my notice → Ask a CA on WhatsAppNo. The Supreme Court held that a single person, male or female, does not constitute a family, and that an assessment in the status of a Hindu undivided family can be made only when there are two or more members. "Family" connotes a group of people related by blood or marriage; plurality of persons is an essential attribute of a family; and s.2(31) treats a Hindu undivided family as an entity distinct and different from an individual. The appeal was dismissed with costs and the assessee remained assessable as an individual. This was decided by the Supreme Court (H.R. Khanna J and A.C. Gupta J (judgment delivered by H.R. Khanna J)) and bears on section 2(31), section 4, section 256(1), section 25A of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 of the Income Tax Act 1961. It is reported as AIR 1975 SC 498; [1974] 97 ITR 493 (SC); (1975) 1 SCC 160; [1975] 2 SCR 709. This is the answer to the sole-surviving-coparcener claim, and it must be read with two qualifications that the judgment itself supplies. First, the Court rejected in terms the wider proposition that there must be at least TWO MALE members: "Under Hindu law a joint family may consist of a single male member and widows of deceased male members", and the Court cited its own decision in CIT v. Ram Ar. Ar. Veerappa Chettiar for the proposition that it is not predicated of a Hindu joint family that there must be a male member, so that so long as the property that was originally the joint family's remains in the hands of the widows of the members and is undivided, the joint family continues. The requirement is plurality of MEMBERS, not plurality of males. Second, the Court decided the status on the facts as they stood: there was admittedly no female member in existence entitled to maintenance from the property or capable of adopting a son to a deceased coparcener, and the Court refused to project future possibilities — an adoption or a marriage that might or might not happen — into the determination of status. The corollary is that the answer changes the moment a second member exists, which is why this decision and N.V. Narendranath v. CWT (a coparcener with a wife and two minor daughters, held assessable as a Hindu undivided family) sit together rather than in conflict. Note also the property-law observation the Court made and relied on: the share a coparcener obtains on partition is ancestral only as regards his male issue, and a sole surviving coparcener may dispose of the coparcenary property as if it were his separate property. If it applies to you, the first step is this: Count the members as at the relevant previous year, not the character of the property. A single member, however ancestral the asset, is assessed as an individual.
C. Krishna Prasad, his father Krishnaswami Naidu and his brother C. Krishna Kumar formed a Hindu undivided family until 30 October 1958, when there was a partition between the father and his two sons. On that partition the assessee received house properties and vacant sites, and the partition was recognised by the department by an order under s.25A of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 with effect from 1 November 1958. On the date of the partition and throughout the year ending 31 March 1964 the assessee was unmarried. Up to 1963-64 he had been assessed as an individual and for the assessment year 1964-65 he filed his return showing his status as an individual, but during the assessment proceedings he claimed to be assessed as a Hindu undivided family. The Income-tax Officer rejected the claim, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Appellate Tribunal affirmed, and on a reference under s.256(1) the Mysore High Court answered the question — whether the assessee was rightly assessed in the status of an individual for 1964-65 — in the affirmative and against him. He appealed on certificate. It was admitted that there was no female member in existence entitled to maintenance from the property or capable of adopting a son to a deceased coparcener. The matter was decided on 1974-11-12 by the Supreme Court (H.R. Khanna J and A.C. Gupta J (judgment delivered by H.R. Khanna J)). On those facts the Supreme Court held as follows. The appeal was dismissed with costs (para 11). An unmarried male Hindu who takes his share on a partition and has no other person as a member of the alleged family cannot be assessed in the status of a Hindu undivided family. "Family" connotes a group of people related by blood or marriage and always signifies a group; plurality of persons is an essential attribute of a family; a single person, male or female, does not constitute a family; and a family consisting of a single individual is a contradiction in terms. Section 2(31) treats a Hindu undivided family as an entity distinct and different from an individual and that difference must be kept in view. An assessment in the status of a Hindu undivided family can be made only when there are two or more members of the family (paras 6 and 7).
The Court began from s.4, which charges tax on the total income of every person, and s.2(31), which defines "person" to include both an individual and a Hindu undivided family, and identified the fallacy in the assessee's case as the proposition that a single individual can constitute a Hindu undivided family (para 6). It reasoned from the ordinary meaning of "family" — the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary definition and Aristotle's Politics — that the word always signifies a group, so that plurality of persons is an essential attribute (para 6). It then rejected the converse proposition that there must be at least two MALE members, noting that under Hindu law a joint family may consist of a single male member and the widows of deceased male members, that the expression "Hindu undivided family" in the Income-tax Act is used in the sense in which a Hindu joint family is understood under the schools of Hindu law, and that in CIT v. Ram Ar. Ar. Veerappa Chettiar the Court had held that a joint family continues so long as the property originally of the joint family remains undivided in the hands of the widows; what follows is that assessment as a Hindu undivided family can be made only where there are two or more members (para 7). On the facts the Court held that the appellant was the absolute owner of what fell to his share, that there was no female member entitled to maintenance or capable of adopting, and that status must be determined by looking to the realities as they exist rather than by projecting future possibilities, which would be speculation (para 8). The reliance placed on Anant Bhikappa Patil v. Shankar Ramchandra Patil was rejected: that case concerned a widow's power to adopt after the death of a sole surviving coparcener and expressed no opinion on whether one individual can constitute a Hindu undivided family; and because an adopted son's rights relate back to the adoptive father's death, Anant must be deemed to have existed as Bhikappa's son from 1905, so Gangabai could not be regarded as the sole member of the family in the years 1917 to 1930 (paras 9 and 10). In the words reproduced by the source cited on this page: "Plurality of persons is an essential attribute of a family. A single person, male or female, does not constitute a family." The decision followed or applied Gowli Buddanna v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Mysore — referred to; the Court noted it had refrained from expressing an opinion on whether a Hindu undivided family may be a taxable entity when it consists of a single member, male or female; Attorney-General of Ceylon v. Ar. Arunachalam Chettiar [1958] 34 ITR 42 — relied on; Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras v. Ram Ar. Ar. Veerappa Chettiar [1970] 76 ITR 467 — relied on; Anant Bhikappa Patil v. Shankar Ramchandra Patil AIR (30) 1943 PC 196 — distinguished.
It was decided by the Supreme Court on 1974-11-12 and is reported as AIR 1975 SC 498; [1974] 97 ITR 493 (SC); (1975) 1 SCC 160; [1975] 2 SCR 709. Binding on every court and authority in India. A Supreme Court decision binds every assessing officer, every Commissioner (Appeals), every bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and every High Court in India. An officer who declines to follow it is acting contrary to law, and that refusal is itself a ground of appeal. On section 2(31), section 4, section 256(1), section 25A of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, the practical question is whether the facts of your own notice match the facts of this case closely enough for the same rule to apply.
It helps the department, and it appears in this library for that reason — you need to know what the Assessing Officer will cite against you. The appeal was dismissed with costs (para 11). An unmarried male Hindu who takes his share on a partition and has no other person as a member of the alleged family cannot be assessed in the status of a Hindu undivided family. "Family" connotes a group of people related by blood or marriage and always signifies a group; plurality of persons is an essential attribute of a family; a single person, male or female, does not constitute a family; and a family consisting of a single individual is a contradiction in terms. Section 2(31) treats a Hindu undivided family as an entity distinct and different from an individual and that difference must be kept in view. An assessment in the status of a Hindu undivided family can be made only when there are two or more members of the family (paras 6 and 7). It arises in Assessment & Scrutiny and How Tax Law Is Read matters, on section 2(31), section 4, section 256(1), section 25A of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 of the Income Tax Act 1961, and was decided by H.R. Khanna J and A.C. Gupta J (judgment delivered by H.R. Khanna J). Before relying on it, read the source linked on this page and check whether it has since been distinguished, overruled or overtaken by an amendment to the Income Tax Act. In practice the steps that follow from it are these. Do not concede an individual status merely because there is only one MALE member. The Court expressly rejected the two-male-members requirement. Where there is a wife, a widow of a deceased member, or an unmarried daughter, say so and press for the family status; the plurality requirement is then satisfied on the Court's own reasoning. Do not argue on the basis of a future adoption or marriage. The Court refused to look at possibilities that might or might not materialise and directed attention to the facts as they exist on the record. If the family status is claimed for a year in which a second member existed and denied for a year in which none did, plead the two years separately; status under this decision is determined year by year on the facts of that year.
Still good law. I did NOT carry out a citator check for later treatment of this judgment and cannot certify that none exists. What I can say is that the reasoning is expressly consistent with the earlier Supreme Court decisions the Court relied on, and that it is not in conflict with N.V. Narendranath v. CWT, which concerned a family with a wife and two minor daughters and turned on the same plurality requirement. Note for readers that the decision predates the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act 2005 and says nothing about the position of a daughter as coparcener; it turns on the number of MEMBERS of the family, a question the 2005 amendment does not touch. No source could be cited for that finding. Checking whether an authority still stands matters as much as knowing what it held: a decision may be overruled on one point and survive on another, or the provision it interprets may have been amended since. Read the source and the editor's note on this page before relying on it in a reply to an Assessing Officer or in an appeal.
The judgment was read in full — header through disposal — at https://indiankanoon.org/doc/22704500/. It runs to ELEVEN numbered paragraphs; I established that by having the whole document transcribed in one piece and seeing paragraph 11 ("There is no merit in the appeal. It is accordingly dismissed with costs.") as the last, not by asking how many paragraphs it has. The key passage was then read a second time, in the Court's own consecutive words, from a DIFFERENT indiankanoon document for the same judgment, /doc/1259915/ (the Supreme Court Reports rendering), through its docfragment URL. The two renderings differ in immaterial ways — the SCR rendering runs what the other prints as paragraphs 5, 6 and 7 together without those numbers, spells "perchance" as one word where the other has "per chance", and has "living beings" where the other has "diving beings" (an obvious scanning error in the latter). The sentences quoted in this entry are word for word identical in both. The plain /doc/1259915/ URL returned HTTP 403 on this pass; only its docfragment view was reachable. The equivalent-citation block printed on the source page is reproduced in 'reported'. Note that the appeal concerned assessment year 1964-65 and the partition had been recognised by an order under s.25A of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922; the status question was decided under the Income-tax Act, 1961. This library shows the verification state of every entry openly. This entry has not yet been read in full by a chartered accountant. The summary reflects the sources listed on this page. Read the source before you rely on it in a reply to an Assessing Officer or in an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.
The appeal was dismissed with costs (para 11). An unmarried male Hindu who takes his share on a partition and has no other person as a member of the alleged family cannot be assessed in the status of a Hindu undivided family. "Family" connotes a group of people related by blood or marriage and always signifies a group; plurality of persons is an essential attribute of a family; a single person, male or female, does not constitute a family; and a family consisting of a single individual is a contradiction in terms. Section 2(31) treats a Hindu undivided family as an entity distinct and different from an individual and that difference must be kept in view. An assessment in the status of a Hindu undivided family can be made only when there are two or more members of the family (paras 6 and 7).
Every entry in this library links to where it was found, so you can check it yourself rather than take our word for it.
Must you deduct tax on every payment to a non-resident, just to be safe?
I was paid to stay out of the business. Is the non-compete money capital or income?
Our family divided the income but not the properties. Is that a partition the department must accept?
What has to happen before a search at someone else's premises can be used against you?