COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX, WEST BENGAL vs. CHAMPA KUMARI SINGHI & ORS.

CIVIL APPEAL No. 1090/1971Supreme Court[1972] 3 S.C.R. 11819 January 1972Bench: 3 JudgesAuthor: K.S. HEGDE, A.N. GROVER, A.N. RAY P.C.11 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What were the facts?

The assessee, a Jain undivided family, was assessed to wealth tax for the assessment year 1957-58. The Wealth Tax Officer assessed the family assets in the status of a Hindu undivided family. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner rejected contentions that the assessment should be in the status of an association of persons or that the levy of wealth tax on a Hindu undivided family was ultra vires. The Appellate Tribunal, however, held that a Jain family was not a Hindu undivided family under Section 3 of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957, and set aside the assessment. The Commissioner of Wealth Tax filed a reference application, leading to the High Court being asked to decide whether a Jain undivided family was a Hindu undivided family within the meaning of Section 3 of the Act. The High Court affirmed the Tribunal's view, holding that Jains, not being Hindus, could not form a Hindu undivided family, despite their family structure being similar to a Hindu undivided family.

What did the Supreme Court hold?

The Supreme Court held that the expression 'Hindu undivided family' includes a 'Jain undivided family'. The Court reasoned that for a long time, courts have treated Jains as Hindu dissenters and applied Hindu law to them, modified by custom. Although Jain historians and writers maintain a distinction, statutory enactments, particularly the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, and the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956, have accorded legislative recognition to the fact that Jains are to be governed by the same laws as Hindus, even if not Hindus by religion. The Court noted that the legislative practice was to generally treat Jains as included in the term 'Hindu' in various statutory enactments, with separate mentions being ex abundantia cautela. The expression 'Jain undivided family' is not a recognized legal term; rather, Jains are governed by all incidents relating to a Hindu joint family. Therefore, the 'Hindu undivided family' as a legal expression in taxation laws embodies the meaning ascribed to the 'Hindu joint family' and includes Jain undivided families. The appeal was allowed, and the question was answered in favour of the Revenue.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, the assessee, a Jain undivided family, was not a Hindu undivided family within the meaning of Section 3 of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957, and as such the Tribunal was right in setting aside the assessment made on the assessee? (Question of mixed law and fact, turning on Section 3 of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957). Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that a Jain undivided family is distinct from a Hindu undivided family and therefore not covered by Section 3 of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957. The High Court's reasoning that Jains are not Hindus was accepted. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue contended that historically and legislatively, Jain undivided families have been treated as Hindu undivided families for the purposes of law, including taxation. They argued that the term 'Hindu undivided family' in Section 3 of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957, should be interpreted to include Jain undivided families, citing various judicial pronouncements and legislative practices. The Revenue relied on the principle that statutory enactments made applicable to Jains, even if using the term 'Hindu', indicate an inclusion of Jains within the broader concept for legal and tax purposes.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 3,Section 27(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

118 COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX, WEST BENGAL A v. CHAMPA KUMARI SINGHI & ORS.

Ja~uary 19, 1972 [K. S. HEGDE, A. N. GROVER AND A. N. RAY, JJ.] Wealth Tax Act, 1957, Section 3-Jain undivided family, whether Hindu Vndivided Fa111ily.

The High Court held that the assessee, a Jain undivided family was not a Hindu undivided family within the meaning of section 3 of Wealth B Tax Act, 1957. According to· the High Court, in order to form a Hindu C undivided family its members must be Hindus; the assessee family being Jains were not Hindus and so its members could not form a Hindu un- divided family although it was "capable of forming a unit of very much of the same type and g_overned by the law applying to a Hindu undivided family". On the question whether the word 'Hindu' preceding the words undivided family signifies that the undivided family should be of th05e (i) who profess Hindu religion; or (ii) to whom Hindu Law applies; or, (iii) who though not professing Hindu religion have come to be regarded D as Hindu undivided family by judicial and legislative prac'ice, HELD : The expression Hindu undivided family includes 'Jain undivid- ed family'.

For a Jong time Cour

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 3

All 264 judgments and leading authorities on Section 3 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →