C. KRISHNA PRASAD vs. C.I.T. BANGALORE

CIVIL APPEAL No. 1553/1970Supreme Court[1975] 2 S.C.R. 70912 November 1974Bench: 2 JudgesAuthor: HANS RAJ KHANNA, A.C. GUPTA6 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Supreme Court hold?

The Supreme Court held that a single person, whether male or female, cannot constitute a family for the purposes of the Income-tax Act. The word 'family' inherently signifies a group, and a plurality of persons is an essential attribute. Section 4 of the Act charges tax on the total income of every 'person', defined in Section 2(31) to include an individual and an HUF. However, a single individual remains an individual and does not form a family. The Court reasoned that the concept of a Hindu joint family involves descendants from a common ancestor, including wives and daughters, and a coparcenary is a narrower body. The expression 'Hindu undivided family' in the Act is understood in the sense of Hindu Law. The Court found no merit in the argument that a potential for future members (through adoption or otherwise) could create an HUF status for the present. The realities at the time of assessment must be considered, not future possibilities. Therefore, the assessee was correctly assessed as an individual. The appeal was dismissed.

What were the facts?

The assessee, C. Krishna Prasad, along with his father and brother, formed a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) until a partition on October 30, 1958. The partition was recognized by the department, with an order under Section 25A of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, effective from November 1, 1958. At the time of partition and for the year ending March 31, 1964, the assessee was unmarried. While assessed as an individual up to assessment year 1963-64, for 1964-65, he initially filed a return as an individual but later claimed HUF status during assessment proceedings. The Income-tax Officer, Appellate Assistant Commissioner, and Tribunal rejected this claim, holding his status as an individual. The High Court affirmed this decision, and the assessee appealed to the Supreme Court.

What were the issues?

1. Whether an unmarried male Hindu, after the partition of a joint Hindu family, can be assessed in the status of an HUF even if no other person besides him is a member of the alleged family, turning on the interpretation of 'person' under Section 2(31) and the concept of 'family' in the context of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. Assessee's contention: The assessee argued that he should be assessed as an HUF. (Specific arguments not detailed in the judgment). Revenue's contention: The revenue contended that a single individual cannot constitute an HUF, and therefore, the assessee should be assessed as an individual. (Specific arguments not detailed in the judgment).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 4,Section 2(31),Section 25A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

A n c D E F G. H C •. KRISHNA PR.ASAD v. C.I;T; BANGALoRE NDYembtr 12~ .. 1974. {H; R. KHANNA, .Ao C. GUPTA; JJ~] . ,lrldiai: Inca~. 111:11 Aci, 1922-Sec. 2(31).....;H/nd~· undivided famil;y.....;Whetlie; a smg/e unmarrlell· person can constitute an HUF •. · · · · · · The BS.leBSee-aJ>PeJiant, with ~ .. father and brother formed a ljUF upiO ~t; 30, 1958 when there was a partition between them and: the a!sessee got- ~rtain house properties and .vacant s(ies. The ,Partitjon.w115.recognis~d by ti!~ D~part­ ment. !!nd an orde~. u/s ~5,A of the Indian ·1ncom~-~l\X Act, J922 was PasSed re· cogmsmg the partition with effect from Nov. 1, 1958; · · 0n the ctate ofJ.>a~ition·and during .the iieriod e~diils March 31, 1964. the assessee was unmarried, upto 1963-64, the assessee was assessed as an individual, b!lt for the Y~.1964-65,. the assessee filed. a .return. showing his.status as an.indi- Vldual but in the course c;>f the assessment procee<lings for 1964'65, he claimed that he should be assessed in ·the st-atils :Of'a HUF.: · · · · The I.T.O. did ·not .a~cept .the .claim and held .that the assesseo's .1tatus was tliat of an individual. The order of the

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 4

All 1,145 judgments and leading authorities on Section 4 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →