Narendrakumar J. Modi Vs. Commissioner
of Income Tax, Gujarat II, Ahmadabad  INSC 165 (4 August 1976)
KHANNA, HANS RAJ KRISHNAIYER, V.R.
CITATION: 1976 AIR 1953 1977 SCR (1) 112 1976
SCC (4) 456
Income Tax Act, 1922---Section
25-A(3)--Claims for partition and disruption of the Hindu Undivided Family
disallowed by I.T.O.--Appeal under the Act filed against the orders of I.T.O.
also dismissed--No reference under the Act challenging the Tribunal's order
dismissing the appeal was taken, but subsequently got a preliminary decree for
partition, passed by the civil court during the pendency of the appeal--Whether
the Income Tax Authorities are bound by the subsequent partition decree of the
Right of management--Hindu Law--Joint Hindu
Undivided Family-Whether a junior member of the family can act as a karta with
the consent of all the other members, if the senior member gives up his right.
Bapalal Purshottamdas Modi was the karta and
head of a Hindu Undivided Family possessing many immovable properties and
carrying on business of various types including money lending. Bapalal had
five. sons, viz. Vadilal Ramanlal, Jayantilal, Gulabehand and Kantilal; out of
whom Ramanlal and Jayantilal predeceased him in 1933 and 1956 respectively and
the appellant was one of the sons of Jayantilal. As per the general power of
attorney dated 5-10-1948, executed by Bapalal in his favour, Gulabchand, the
third son was acting as a karta and was filing the various tax returns without
any objection. whatsoever by the other members of the Hindu Undivided Family.
Bapalal relinquished all his rights in the joint family property on 22-10.54leaving
the corpus of the joint family properties to his four surviving sons and Rajnikant,
son of Ramanlal. All of them executed on 24-1054, a memo of partition
disrupting the Hindu Undivided Family and partitioning the properties the
course of the proceedings of the income-tax assessment for the assessment year
1955-56 against the H.U.F. of Bapalal Purshottamlal Modi, an application under
s. 25A of the Income Tax. Act, 1922 claiming partition was made. The claim was
disallowed by' the I.T.O. by his order dated 28-1-1960. During the pendency of
the appeal, a suit for partition was filed in 1961 and a decree for partition
was obtained on June 30, 1965. The. appeal to the Appellate Assistant
Commissioner was dismissed on September 30, 1965 and the second appeal 10 the
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was also dismissed on March 28. 1969. The
appellants did not ask for a reference to the High Court, as provided under the
Act, but went on filing the returns in respect of the subsequent assessment
years. When the Income Tax Officer got attached the entire amount in the,
Savings Bank A/c towards the tax liability by an order dated May 12. 1970, the
appellant filed a writ petition challenging the various orders passed in the
proceedings under s. 25A for the assessment years 1955.66 to 1965-66 and the
several attachment orders. The High Court dismissed the writ in limine, but
granted a certificate under Art. 133(1)(b) of the Constitution.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court,
HELD: (1) Sub section (3) of s. 25A provides
that where an order accepting partition had not been passed in respect of a
Hindu Undivided Family assessed as undivided, such family shall be deemed for
the purposes of the Act to continue to be Hindu Undivided Family. The Income
Tax Officers who had their own view to take, were not bound by the decree,
since in the instant case the partition preliminary decree came much later and
there was no reference under the Income Tax Act challenging the order of the
Tribunal. [116 C-D] (2) A junior member of the family can, with the consent of
all the other members. act as a karta, if the senior member gives up his right.
[116 E] 113
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal
No. 156 of 1971.
From the Judgment and Order dated 19-10-1970
of the Gujarat High Court in Special Civil Appln. No. 1177/70.
B.R.L. Iyengar, S.K. Dholakia and R.C. Bhatia,
for the appellant.
B.B.Ahuja, for respondent No. 1.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
UNTWALIA, J. The appellant's writ petition filed in the High Court of Gujarat
was dismissed in limine by a Bench of the High Court on October 19, 1970. The
Commissioner of Income tax, Gujarat II, respondent no. 1 was the authority
against whom several reliefs had been claimed in the writ petition.
Subsequently were added the other members of the family of the appellant as
respondents to the writ petition.
The appellant obtained a certified from the
High Court for appeal to this Court under sub-clause (b) of clause (1) of
Article 133 of the Constitution of India as it stood before the 30th
Constitution Amendment Act. Hence tills appeal to this Court.
Having heard Mr. B.R.L. Iyengar, Senior
Advocate for the appellant at some length we found that the appellant was
ill-advised to file the writ petition and to. pursue the matter upto this
Court. The appeal being devoid of any substance must fail. We proceed to state
the facts and discuss the points urged before us very briefly.
One BapalaI Purshottamdas Modi was the head
of a Hindu Undivided family. The joint family possessed many immovable
properties and carried on business of various types such as money-lending etc.
Bapalal had five sons namely Vadilal, Ramanlal, Jayantilal, Gulabchand and
Kantilal. Ramanlal died long ago in or about the year 1933. Jayantilal died in
1956. The appellant is one of the sons of Jayantilal.
The appellant's case in the writ petition was
that Bapalal was the karta of the Hindu Undivided family. He executed a general
power of attorney on October 5, 1948 in favour of his third son Gulabchand to
manage his (Bapalal's) separate property. On October 22, 1954 Bapalal
relinquished his right, title and interest in the joint family properties on
taking a sum of Rs. 75,000/leaving the corpus and management of the joint
family properties to his four surviving sons and Rajnikant, son of late
Ramanlal. These five members also executed a memo of partition on October 24,
1954 disrupting the erstwhile Hindu Undivided family and partitioning the
In course of the proceedings for assessment
of the incometax for the assessment year 1955-56 against the Hindu Undivided
family of Bapalal Purshottamlal Modi, an application under Section 25A of the
Income-tax Act, 1922 was made claiming partition w.e.f. October 24, 1954.
Notices of the enquiry under section 25A were served on all the members of the
family. At the enquiry the statements of various persons including the
appellant were recorded by the Income tax Officer. He, by his order, dated
January 28, 1960 disallowed the 114 claim under section 25A of the Income-tax
Act, 1922. It is asserted that in the year 1961 a suit for partition had also
been filed and the City Civil Court Ahmedabad passed a decree for partition on
June 30, 1965. In an appeal filed before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner
from the order of the Income-tax Officer dated January 28, 1960 reliance was
placed on the Civil Court partition decree also. The Appellate Assistant
Commissioner, however, dismissed the appeal by his order dated September 30,
1965. A second appeal to the Income tax Appellate Tribunal was dismissed on
March 28, 1969. InCometax assessment was made against the Hindu Undivided
family for the year 1955-56. Assessments were also made against the Hindu
Undivided family, sometimes treating it as Association of Persons or
Unregistered Partnership Firm as per returns filed from time to time, for the
subsequent years up to the assessment year 1965-66. Copies of all the
assessment orders were enclosed with the writ petition as Annexure 'I'
collectively. Appeals taken to the Tribunal from some of the assessment orders
were also dismissed. Notices were being issued and served under sections 22 and
23 of the Income tax Act, 1922 for the assessment years which were governed by
the said Act. In respect of the assessment years 196.2-63 onwards notices were.
issued and served under sections 142 and 143 of the Income tax Act, 1961. A
large sum of tax and penalty became due as the demands from time to time were
partly paid. The Income-tax authorities took steps for realization of the
income tax dues against the appellant's family and got attached various
properties. In Civil Suit No. 806 of 1961 in which the preliminary partition
decree was passed on June 30, 1965, respondent Kantilal had been appointed as a
receiver Later on one Mr. Bhatt was appointed Receiver. A Savings Bank Account
No. 412002 was being operated by the Receiver. The Income-tax Officer attached
the entire amount of Rs. 56,294.43 in the said account by his orders dated May
12, 1970. Thereupon, the appellant filed-the writ petition challenging the
various orders passed in the proceeding under section 25A of the Income tax
Act, 1922; the assessments made for the years 1955-56 to 1965-66 and the
attachment orders on various grounds. In a single writ petition rambling
allegations were made challenging the multifarious proceedings and the orders
on various grounds and the following prayers were made:
"(a) declaring void and illegal and
quashing the proceedings of the income tax authorities making assessments on
Hindu Undivided Family, Association of persons and unregistered partnership
firm aforesaid for the years beginning from the assessment year 1955-56 and
also the proceedings for the recovery of the taxes so assessed, and (b)
quashing the orders of the income-tax Authorities refusing to record partition
and directing the Respondent and his Subordinates to record under Section 25A
of the Act that the erstwhile joint family property has been divided or partitioned
in definite portions, each member getting an equal share, on October, 1954;
115 (c) directing the respondent and his
subordinates to cancel or withdraw the impugned orders and all steps taken for
the recovery of the amounts so. assessed;
(d) directing the respondent and his subordinates
not to take any further steps for the recovery of the tax so assessed;
(e) quashing all the penalty orders and such
other orders passed in pursuance of the assessment proceedings aforesaid;
(f) quashing all the orders of attachment or
in the nature attachment passed by the Income tax Authorities in these
proceedings for the assessment year 1955-56 onwards, and (g) to pass such other
and further orders as your Lordships deem just and expedient in the circumstances
of the case." It seems to us that the High Court rightly dismissed the
appellant's petition in limine.
Since the valuation under Article 133(1)(b)
was beyond Rs. 20,000/-, the appellant was granted a certificate as a matter of
It was pointed out to. the appellant's
counsel that so many proceedings and orders could not be challenged in one writ
petition and he was asked to make his submissions in the appeal confining the
writ petition to one matter only. Counsel chose to confine it to the attack on
the attachment order of the Income tax Officer in respect of the money lying in
the Savings Bank Account. While doing so, he traversed the entire allegations
in the petition by adopting an ingenious method. Counsel submitted that the
attachment had been made for realization of the income tax dues based upon
various orders which were void and ultra vires. All those orders could be attacked
collaterally while attacking the attachment order.
Mr. Iyengar urged the following points in support
of the appeal.
(1 ) That the orders of the various
authorities rejecting the claim of the partition under section 25A of the
Income tax Act, 1922 were without jurisdiction and on their face suffered from
many infirmities of law.
(2) That after Bapalal relinquished his interest
in the joint family properties and ceased to be the karta, there was no karta
of the family.
Gulabchand--a junior member of the family
could not act as a karta. Other members of the family did not accept him to be
(3) That even after the death of Bapalal in
the year 1958 various notices under the Income tax Act were issued and served
in the name of Bapalal Purshottamdas Modi--a dead person--and hence the entire
proceedings and assessment orders were nullities.
116 (4) That the appellant had no opportunity
of taking any part in the income tax proceedings and his property cannot be
made liable for realization of the dues determined in such proceedings.
None of the points urged on behalf of the
appellant merits any detailed discussion. We were taken through the power of
attorney executed by Bapalal in favour of Gulabchand, the deed of relinquishment
executed by him on October 22, 1954 and the alleged memorandum of partition of
October 24, 1954; the orders of the Income tax officer, the Appellate
Commissioner and the Tribunal in the proceedings under section 25A of the
Income tax Act, 1922. In our opinion. the orders do not suffer from any
infirmity of law or any such defect which will make them void. Notice of the
enquiry had been given to all the members as admitted by the appellant himself.
He had been examined in the proceedings. Sub-section (3) of Section 25A provides.
that where an order accepting partition had not been passed in respect of a
Hindu family assessed as undivided such family shall be deemed for the purposes
of the Act to continue to be Hindu undivide family. A partition preliminary
decree came much later. The income tax authorities had their own view to take.
They were not bound by the decree. No reference was taken under the income tax
Act challenging the order of the Tribunal dismissing the appeal.
It was clear from some of the assessment orders
that Gulabchand was acting as a karta even during the life time of Bapalal as
he had retired to live in Brindaban. At the relevant time no body disputed his
authority to act as karta. His eldest brother Vadilal was an old man of about
70 years of age. His elder brother Jayantilal--father of the appellant died in
the year 1956. In these circumstances he appears to have acted as the karta
with consent of all the other members. A junior member of the family could do
so. See Mulla's Hindu Law 296, fourteenth edn. Where occurs the following
"So long as the members of a family
remain undivided, the senior member of the family is entitled to manage the
family properties," including even charitable properties (q); and is
presumed to be the manager until the contrary is shown(r).
But the senior member may give up his right
of management, and a junior member may be appointed manager(s) ." Notices
were being issued in the name of the family which was carrying on the business
in the assumed name of Bapalal Purshottamdas Modi. They were neither issued to
nor served on Bapajal the dead person. In response to the notices returns were
being filed by the managing member of the family. At no stage before the income
tax authorities a contention was raised that the notice was served on a dead
person. There is no substance in the third point. Coming to the fourth and the
last point urged on behalf of the appellant we find that the appellant is bound
by the assessment made in respect of the income of his family which continued
in the eye of law to be joint. The share 117 of the appellant's properties
received by him from the joint family or the income thereof is liable for the
income tax dues in question. The appellant, as we have said above, was
ill-advised to file a misconceived petition on wholly untenable grounds.
In the result the appeal fails and is
dismissed with costs to respondent no. 1.
S.R. Appeal dismissed.