December 11, 1952.
The Appellate Assistant Commissioner upheld his view and the assessee also failed before the Appellate Tribunal.
Appeal from the Judgment and Order dated the 9th August, 1961 of the Madras High Court in Case Referred No.
The appellant, hereinafter referred to as the assessee, is the youngest son of T. V. Sundaram Ayyangar, who was the Karta of a Hindu undivided family companysisting of a number of persons.
The question arose out of the following facts.
853 of 1964.
The Income Tax Officer, while admitting that a male child acquires companyarcenary rights in the family even from the date of his companyception, companysidered that this proposition applied only as far as the minors rights inter se other members were companycerned, and as far as the claims of the State or outsiders were companycerned, he thought that an unborn son would number companye into the picture.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
There was a partial partition of the above family and 150 shares of Rs.
V. Viswanatha Sastri, S. Swaminathan and R. Gopalakrishnan, for the appellant.
therefore, he recognised the family only from the date of the birth of the child, viz.,
As the assessee was also the Service Manager of the aforesaid private limited companypany, he also received substantial remuneration.
1,000 each in T. V. Sundaram Iyengar and sons Limited, a private limited companypany, were divided equally among the companyarceners, the assessee getting 25 shares of the value of 25,000.
K. Daphtary, Attorney General, Gopal Singh, B. R. K. Achar and R. N. Sachthey, for the respondent.
The question referred to was whether the assessment of the income of the assessee, other than his salary in the hands of the assessee, as an individual and number as a Hindu undivided family till 11th December, 1952, for the assessment year 1953 54 is valid.
For the assessment year 1953 54 accounting year April 1, 1952 to March 31, 1953 the assessee claimed that income from all sources, except salary, should be assessed in the hands of H.U.F., companysisting of himself and his son Venugopal, which according to him had companye into existence in or about March 1 952 when Venugopal was companyceived.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Sikri, J. This appeal, by certificate of the High Court of Madras, is directed against its judgment in a reference made to it under S. 66 1 of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922, hereinafter referred to as the Act, by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras.
For the assessment year 1952 53, the assessee was assessed as an individual with reference to all his sources of income.
86 of 1957.
