Patna High Court
Ambika Prasad Singh vs The Commissioner For Income Tax, Bihar ... on 11 June, 1925
Equivalent citations: 93IND. CAS.999, AIR 1926 PATNA 256
JUDGMENT Dawson Miller, C.J.
1. This is a case stated for the opinion of the Court by the Income-tax Commissioner under Section 66, sub-Section (1), of the Income-Tax Act, 1922.
2. The assessee-Ambika Prashad Singh is the father of the present proprietor of the 9-annas Tikari Raj. The assessee has no interest in that property but his son the proprietor has been in the habit of making him an allowance yearly out of the proceeds of the property of the Tikari Raj. Upon that the assessee has been assessed to income-tax and the question which is submitted for our opinion in this case is formulated by the Income-tax Commissioner thus:
The question for the determination of the High Court is whether, when a man receives an annual allowance from his son out of a property which the son inherited from his maternal grandfather, this sum is exempt under the provisions of sub- Section (1) of Section 14 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922.
3. Section 14, sub-section (1), provides as follows:
The tax shall not be payable by an assessee in respect of any sum which he receives as a member of a Hindu undivided family.
4. The learned Commissioner was of opinion that as the assessee received this sum as an allowance from his son and not by reason of any right to share in the proceeds of the Tikari Raj that property not being the property of an undivided Hindu family he did net come under the provisions of Section 14, sub-section (1). His view of that section is that it only applies to cases where the assessee receives the income in the capacity of a member of a Hindu undivided family. If he receives it as a mere gratuitous allowance to which he is not in law entitled by reason of being a member of a joint family then he does not come under the provisions of Section 14. That is the only question which has been submitted for our opinion.
5. It is contended by Mr. Jayaswal on behalf of the assessee that if he is joint with his son for ally purpose, and he contends. that in the present case he is joint for soma purposes, then anything which he may receive from his son is received by him as a member of a Hindu undivided family. I cannot think that the section bears any such interpretation. The whole object of the section is to exempt, from taxation in the hands of an individual that which has already been taxed in the hands of the joint family as such. If, however, the individual receives an income aliunde from property which has not been taxed as that of a Hindu joint family then it would appear that the provisions of Section 14 have no application whatever. In my opinion the learned Commissioner took a correct view of the section and the question propounded for our opinion must on the facts stated be answered in the negative.
Macpherson, J.
6. I agree.