T. S. SRINIVASAN vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MADRAS

CIVIL APPEAL No. 853/1964Supreme Court[1966] 2 S.C.R. 75529 November 1965Bench: 3 JudgesAuthor: K. SUBBA RAO, J.C. SHAH, S.M. SIKRI6 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Supreme Court hold?

The Tribunal held that the doctrine of Hindu Law, which equates a conceived son with an existing son for certain purposes, is not of universal application and primarily applies to property rights and their safeguarding. This doctrine does not align with the scheme of the Income Tax Act, and it was not the legislature's intention to incorporate this special doctrine into the Act. The Act charges income to existing entities, and imposing liability on unborn persons was not intended. The Tribunal found it difficult to reconcile the doctrine with the provisions of the Act, particularly concerning the filing of returns and the particulars required for HUFs. The Tribunal also noted that no rights of the son were affected by not recognizing his existence for the Act's purposes until his birth. Even if an HUF existed towards the end of the accounting year, the income accrued prior to the child's birth belonged to the assessee as an individual. Therefore, the High Court's decision in favour of the revenue was upheld. The appeal was dismissed.

What were the facts?

The assessee, for the assessment year 1953-54 (accounting year April 1, 1952 to March 31, 1953), claimed that income, excluding salary, should be assessed as the income of a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF). The assessee argued that this HUF came into existence in March 1952, when his son was conceived. The Income Tax Officer, however, recognized the HUF only from the date of the child's birth on December 11, 1952. This position was upheld by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, the Appellate Tribunal, and the High Court on reference. The appeal challenges the High Court's decision.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, for the purposes of the Income Tax Act, 1922, a Hindu Undivided Family comes into existence from the date of conception of a son or from the date of his birth, considering the principles of Hindu Law. Assessee's contentions: - Under the Income Tax Act, an HUF is a separate unit, and its existence and commencement date should be determined by Hindu Law, as the Act provides no specific rules. - Hindu Law establishes that a conceived son has the same property rights as a living son, and a joint Hindu family comes into existence from the date of conception. - In this case, the son was conceived in March 1952, making the HUF in existence from the beginning of the accounting year 1952-53. Revenue's contentions: - The doctrine of Hindu Law regarding conceived sons applies only for specific purposes, like safeguarding property rights, and is not universally applicable. - The Income Tax Act deals with visible realities; an unborn son is not a visible person for the purpose of income accrual. - Applying the conception doctrine would introduce anomalies into the Act's working, including difficulties in filing tax returns. - The prescribed return forms assume all members were in existence at the end of the previous year.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 3,Section 4,Section 22

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

• • • • B c D E F G T. S. SRINIVASAN v . COMMISSIONER OF IJ."'COME TAX, MADRAS November 29, 1965 [K. SuBBA RAo, J. C. SHAH AND S. M. SIKRI, JJ.] /l!come- Tax Act, 1922, s. 3-Hindu undivided family-Whether· comes into being on conception of son or on birth. A son was born to the assessee, a Hindu, on December 11, 1952, and it was common ground that the conception of the child must have taken place sometime in March 1952. For the assessment year 1953-54 (accounting year April 1, 1952 to March 31,, 1953) the assessee claimed that certain income received by him should be assessed as the income of a Hindu undivided family, which, according to him had come into existence in or about March 1952 when the son was conceived. The Income Tax Officer however recognised the family as a Hindu undivided family only from the date of the birth of the child. This view was up- held by the appellate authorities and the High Court, upon a reference,. also answered the question against the assessee.

It was contended on behalf of the assessee that under the Income-tax Act, a Hindu undivided family is a separate unit and in determining· whether a Hindu undivided family

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 288 judgments and leading authorities on Section 3 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →