INCOME TAX OFFICER, CALICUT vs. SMT. N.K. SARADA THAMPATTY

CIVIL APPEAL No. 778/1976Supreme Court1990 INSC 28014 September 1990Bench: 3 JudgesAuthor: K.N. SINGH, K. JAGANNATHA SHETTY, KULDIP SINGH9 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What were the facts?

The assessee, Smt. N.K. Sarada Thampatty, was assessed for assessment years 1967-68, 1968-69, and 1969-70 as the head of a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF). She claimed that the HUF's status was disrupted due to a partition agreement dated 3.7.1958 and a Civil Court decree in a partition suit, resulting in the property being divided into 14 shares. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) rejected this claim, stating that the preliminary decree was not final and no physical partition had occurred, thus the HUF status continued for tax purposes. The High Court, in a writ petition, allowed the assessee's claim, holding that Section 171 of the Income Tax Act did not apply if division occurred before the accounting period and no income was received by the HUF. A Division Bench of the High Court upheld this, stating no provision deemed income of members as HUF income after disruption. The Revenue appealed to the Supreme Court.

What did the Supreme Court hold?

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the High Court's order. The Court held that under Section 171 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, a Hindu Family assessed as HUF is deemed to continue as such unless partition is proved to have been effected in accordance with the section. The Explanation to Section 171 assigns a special meaning to partition, requiring actual physical division of property by metes and bounds, even if a Civil Court decree has been passed. A preliminary decree or a mere agreement to partition is insufficient. The onus is on the assessee to prove physical division. Since there was no physical division of the properties in this case, the HUF status had not been disrupted for assessment purposes, and the income derived from the properties continued to be impressed with the HUF character. The Court distinguished the cases relied upon by the assessee, particularly noting that Kaloomal Tapeshwar Prasad v. C.I.T., Kanpur was directly on Section 171 and supported the Revenue's position. The High Court's view was found unsustainable and contrary to this Court's decision.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, for the purposes of assessment under Section 171 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, a partition of a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) is considered effected only upon physical division of property, irrespective of a Civil Court decree. Assessee's contentions: - The HUF status was disrupted by a partition agreement and a Civil Court decree. - The High Court correctly held that Section 171 does not apply if division occurred before the accounting period and the HUF received no income. - The Division Bench correctly held that there is no provision to deem members' income as HUF income after disruption. Revenue's contentions: - Section 171 and its Explanation mandate physical division of property for partition to be recognized for tax purposes. - A Civil Court decree alone is insufficient if physical division has not occurred. - The HUF status continues for tax purposes until actual physical division of property.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 171

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

INCOME TAX OFFICER, CALICUT V. SMT. N.K. SARADA THAMPATTY SEPTEMBER 14, 1990 A [K.N. SINGH, K. JAGANNATHA SHE1TY AND B KULDIP SINGH, JJ.] Income Tax Act, I96I-Section 17 I-Scope of-Assessment under-Hindu Undivided Family-Construction of-Plea of partition taken by assessee-Duties of Income Tax Officer indicated.

Income Tax Act, I96I~Section I71, Explanation-"Partition"- M anaging and Legislative intention of Income Tax Act, I96 I-Section 171, Explanation-AsseS8ee claming partition-Onus to prove disruption of Hindu Undivided Family status on the assessee.

Income Tax Act, I96I-Section 17 I, Explanation-Partition under and Hindu Law partition-Differentiated. c D Income Tax Act, I96 I-Section 171, Explanation-Assessee claiming partition-No physical division of properties status of Hindu E Undivided Family not disrupted~lncome derived from the properties continued to be impressed with the HUF character and can be taxed.

Respondent was assessed for the assessment years of 1967·68, 1968-69 and 1969· 70 treating her as the head of the HUF. She con• tended before the Income Tax Officer that under the partition agree· F ment dated 3. 7 .1958 the Tavazhi was divided,

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 171

All 72 judgments and leading authorities on Section 171 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →