PRIVY COUNCIL

Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay Presidency and Aden

                   Vs.

                   A.P. SwamyGomedalli

              Privy Council Appeal No. 78 of 1936
(Lord Macmillan, J. Sir ShadiLal and Sir George Rankin JJ.)

                   30.04.1937

                   JUDGMENT

LORD MACMILLAN J.

1. Since the order pronounced by the High Court in the present case on 28th March
1935, this Board has had occasion to consider the interpretation of the words "Hindu
undivided family" as employed in Section 55, Income-tax Act, in the case of
KalyanjiVithaldas v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bengal, in which the judgment of
their Lordships was delivered on 30th November. In that case the meaning of those
words in the section in question, where they are used in connexion with liability to
super-tax, was very fully examined in the judgment which Sir George Rankin prepared
on behalf of the Board, and a conclusion was reached contrary to the view which the
High Court has adopted in the present case. Mr. DeGruyther has sought to show that
the principle of that decision does not apply to the facts of the case now before the
Board. Their Lordships have listened attentively to Mr. DeGruyther's observations; but
they are not satisfied that the facts of the present case differ in any material respect
from the facts which were before the Board in the previous case in 1936, and the
decision in that case must accordingly rule the pre-sent appeal. Their Lordships will
therefore humbly advise His Majesty that the appeal should be allowed, and the order
of 28th March 1935, be reversed; that it should be found in answer to the first question
as follows :

"That in the circumstances of the case the income received by right of
survivorship by the sole surviving male member of a Hindu undivided family
can be taxed in the hands of such male member as his own individual income
for the purposes of assessment to super-tax under section 55, Income-tax Act,
       1922"; and that the answer to the second question should be in the affirmative.
       The appellant will have his costs here and below.
Appeal allowed.

Cases Referred.

1936 (AIR 1937 PC 36=166 IC 445=64 IA 28=ILR (1937) 1 Cal 653 (PC))