JUDGMENT
WORT, A.C.J. – This is a case stated by the Commissioner of Income-tax in the form of three questions. The third question only has been discussed before this Court and with regard to the other two questions they are not pressed.
The third question is : “In view of the facts that the Estate of the petitioner is an impartible Raj and the petitioner is governed by the law of Mitakshara and is the head of a family consisting of himself and his son and others, whether the super-tax in this assessment should be calculated as on a Hindu joint family or individual”. The Income-tax authority has assessed the income of the Raja of Kanika as an individual and not as the income of a joint Hindu family; the particulars of the income it is not necessary to state. The facts are sufficiently indicated by the question itself.
The only matter that strictly arises before us is whether circumstances exist which would necessitate our referring this matter to a Full Bench as there is a decision of this Court on the point against the assessee. I refer to the decision of Sir Dawson Miller, C.J., and Foster J., Raja Shiva Prasad Singh v. The Crown (I.L.R. 4 Patna 73) in which it was decided that the income of the holder of an impartible Raj was to be assessed as the income of an individual and not as the income of the joint Hindu family. This decision has been approved of by the learned Judges of the Madras v. Madras High Court in the Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras v. The Honourable Sri Ravu Swetachalapati Rama Krishna Ranga Rao Bahadur, Raj of Bobbili (I.L.R. 1937 Mad. 797) in which reference was made also to the decision of this Court in Commissioner of Income-tax, Bihar and Orissa v. Maharajadhiraja Kumar Bisheswar Singh (I.L.R. 14 Pat. 785) a case on which Sir Manmatha Nath Mukherji relies for his contention that the earlier decision of this court has in effect been overruled. The case to which I have just made reference was a case in which an allowance was made by the Maharajadhiraja to his younger brother of Rs. 48,000 per annum and the question arose whether the sum was received by the younger brother as a member of the Hindu undivided family within the meaning of Section 14 sub-section (1) of the Income-tax Act ? It was decided that it was. Sir Owen Beasley pointed out in the Madras case to which I have referred in making reference to this later decision of our court that the fact that the allowance was paid out of the joint family property was not controverted in that case; and as stated in the leading Judgment, the Court had not to consider the nature of the income from the impartible estate in the hands of the holder. It would be impossible to say that Agarwala, J., who delivered the leading Judgment in the case reported in the Fourteen the Volume of the Patna Series, has considered the question of the nature of the income in the hands of the holder of the impartible estate. Had it been otherwise, it certainly would have had a direct bearing upon the decision in the Fourth Volume of the Patna Series to which I have made reference and which is, as I have already indicated, binding upon this Court. The necessity for reference to a Full Bench does not arise, in my judgment, by reason of the fact that in a Divisional Court decision of the Lahore High Court in Kishan Kishore v. Commissioner of Income-tax (I.L.R. 14 Lahore 255) another view has been taken. The point is clearly concluded by the decision of this Court, and I would therefore answer the their question submitted to this Court in the following manner :-
“The income of the impartible Raj in the hands of the holder is to be assessed on the footing that the income is the income of an individual and not of an undivided family.”
The Crown is entitled to costs; hearing fee ten gold Mohurs.
DHAVLE, J. – I agree.
Reference answered accordingly.