CASE :- SURJIT LAL CHHABDA VS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 6 OCTOBER 1975
PARTIES
PETITIONER :- SURJIT LAL CHHABDA
RESPONDENT :- COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BOMBAY
DATE OF JUDGEMENT :- 06/10/1975
BENCH :- CHANDRACHUD , Y.V. SARKARIA, RANJIT SINGH GUPTA, A.C
CITATION :- 1976 AIR 109, 1976 SCC (3) 142 , 1976 SCR (2) 164
FACTS OF THE CASE :-
Petitioner Surjit lal was the owner of an immovable property called ” kathoke lodge” . He used to derive rent income from kathoke lodge property. The appellant is governed by the Mitakshara school of Hindu law. On January 26, 1956 he made a sworn declaration that he had thrown the property kathoke lodge into the family hotchpot and a single male member HUF constituted. Now Surjit had abandoned all separate claims related to income in kathoke lodge property in the status of Hindu Undivided family but CIT (Commissioner of Income Tax) rejected the contention and stated that a single male member can’t constitute a HUF as his family members are both females. And the Income Tax Officer did not accept it either as a Hindu Undivided Family. ITO held that there was nothing with which the appellant could mingle his separate property. AAC (Appellant Assistant Commissioner) also dismissed the appeal stating that the income from the property could still be taxed from appellant as he was the sole male member.
ISSUES
- Whether a single male constitutes a JHF (joint hindu family) or HUF with his wife or unmarried daughter?
- If a HUF consists of a single coparcener would the immovable property will be assessed under that coparcener or HUF ?
CONTENTION
APPELLANT :- SURJIT LAL CHHABDA
As Surjit lal chhabda had thrown the property kathoke lodge into the family hotchpot to claim that the property is in the character of joint family property and he would be holding that property as the karta of the joint Hindu Family consisting of himself, his wife and one unmarried daughter. So he contended that since he had abondoned all separate claims to kathoke lodge, the income which he received from that property should be assessed in the status of a Hindu Undivided Family and kathoke lodge were his self acquired property and he used to be assessed as an individual in respect of the income before 1956- 1957.
RESPONDENT :- COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BOMBAY
The Income Tax Officer contended that in the absence of a nucleus of joint family property, there was nothing with which the appellant could mingle his property and secondly there could not be Hindu Undivided Family without there being Undivided Family property. Hence no Undivided Family property in this case. CIT (Commissioner Of Income Tax) contended that a single male member can’t constitute a HUF. AAC contended that even assuming that the property was thrown into the common stock and was therefore joint family property, the income from that property could still be taxed from the appellant as he was the sole male member.
JUDGEMENT
It is held by the High Court on behalf of the appellant stated that it is open to a male member of a joint Hindu family to convert his self-acquired property into joint family property by throwing it into the common hotchpot and it is neither necessary that there should be an ancestral or joint family nucleus so it’s income belong to the joint hindu family of which appellant was the karta. And there need not be more than one male member for forming a joint Hindu family as a taxable unit. A joint hindu could lawfully consist of a single male member but the appellant has no son and therefore no Undivided Family but his ownership of that property and income remains the same. So a single male can constitute a JHF with his wife and unmarried daughter. And appellant is the only coparcener in the property and he’s the karta himself so he holds energy over the property as before his declaration. And ‘ HUF ‘ ‘JHF’ and ‘Family Hotchpot’ are synonymous with each other.
CONCLUSION
In this case women’s right were established as the women with one male can constitute a HUF which cannot be discarded totally. And it is held by the High Court that as the appellant’s family did not have any other male coparcener, so the assets must belong to him as an individual and not to the Hindu Undivided Family and no need of 2 male member to constitute hindu Undivided Family. As the owner of the kathoke lodge the income will be his income even after the property was thrown into the family hotchpot and would be chargeable to income tax as individual income and not that of the family. So the appellant who throws the property kathoke lodge into the family hotchpot is the only coparcener in the property and he’s the karta himself so that is why he holds every right over the property.Also it is made clear by the Hon’ble Court that ‘HUF’, ‘JUF’ and family hotchpot are synonymous to each other.
REFERENCE
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1719225/
written by Ritika Sharma intern under legal vidhiya.
