{"id":246610,"date":"1964-11-09T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1964-11-08T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/additional-income-tax-officer-vs-a-thimmayyaand-others-on-9-november-1964"},"modified":"2016-09-17T17:43:37","modified_gmt":"2016-09-17T12:13:37","slug":"additional-income-tax-officer-vs-a-thimmayyaand-others-on-9-november-1964","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/additional-income-tax-officer-vs-a-thimmayyaand-others-on-9-november-1964","title":{"rendered":"Additional Income-Tax Officer, … vs A. Thimmayyaand Others on 9 November, 1964"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Additional Income-Tax Officer, … vs A. Thimmayyaand Others on 9 November, 1964<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1965 AIR 1238, \t\t 1965 SCR (2)\t 91<\/div>\n
Author: S C.<\/div>\n
Bench: Shah, J.C.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nADDITIONAL INCOME-TAX OFFICER, CUDDAPAH\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nA. THIMMAYYAAND OTHERS\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n09\/11\/1964\n\nBENCH:\nSHAH, J.C.\nBENCH:\nSHAH, J.C.\nSUBBARAO, K.\nSIKRI, S.M.\n\nCITATION:\n 1965 AIR 1238\t\t  1965 SCR  (2)\t 91\n CITATOR INFO :\n RF\t    1972 SC 294\t (12)\n R\t    1976 SC1678\t (6)\n RF\t    1977 SC 552\t (7)\n R\t    1981 SC1965\t (14,16)\n R\t    1982 SC 760\t (13)\n\n\nACT:\nIncome-tax Act (XI of 1922), s. 25-A (1) and (2)-Scope of.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nWhile  proceedings  for assessment of the  income-tax  of  a\nHindu  undivided  family,  of  which  the  respondents\twere\nmembers,  were pending, there was a partition in the  family\nand  a consequent claim for recognising the partition  under\ns.  25-A(1)  of\t the Income-tax Act (XI of  1922)  was\tmade\nbefore\t the  Income-tax  Officer.   The   officer   however\nproceeded to assess the tax as if there was no partition and\nafter  the  order of assessment was made,  passed  an  order\nrecognising the partition.  The amount of tax determined  by\nthe officer was questioned on appeal and before the Tribunal\nbut  without  success.\tAs the tax due was  in\tarrear,\t the\nofficer\t sought\t to attach the remuneration  earned  by\t the\nrespondents as employees of a firm, by resorting to s. 46(5)\nof  the\t Act.  The respondents challenged the order  of\t the\nIncome-tax Officer under s. 46(5), by a writ petition  which\nwas allowed by the High Court on the ground that the Income-\ntax  Officer  could not proceed to collect the\ttax  without\napportioning the tax liability under 25-A(2).  In appeal  to\nthe Supreme Court,\nHELD : Though the High Court was in error in holding that an\norder of  assessment which had become final was liable to be\nreopened under s.25-A(2) by the Income-tax Officer when\t the\norder  under s. 25-A(1) was passed by him subsequent to\t the\norder of assessment, the appeal should be dismissed because,\nso  long as there was an assessment of the  Hindu  undivided\nfamily,\t the  liability for payment of the tax\twas  on\t the\nproperty  of the family and there was no personal  liability\non the members. [97 E-F, H]\nThe  scheme of the section is that a Hindu undivided  family\nassessed  in  respect of its income, would  continue  to  be\nassessed  in that status notwithstanding a partition of\t the\nproperty  among\t its members.  If a claim is raised  at\t the\ntime  of  making  an assessment that a\tpartition  had\tbeen\neffected, the Income-tax Officer must make an inquiry  after\nnotice\tto all the members of the family and make  an  order\nthat  the family property had been partitioned\tin  definite\nportions  if  he  is so satisfied.  He is  however,  by\t law\nrequired  to  make the assessment on the income of  the\t un-\ndivided family, as if no partition had taken place and\tthen\nto  apportion  to each member or group of members  the\ttax-\nliability  according to the portion of the  family  property\nallotted.   In such a case the members of the  family  stand\njointly\t and severally liable for the entire amount of\ttax,\nunder  the proviso to sub. (2) of section.  It no claim\t for\nrecording partition is made, or if a claim is made and it is\ndisallowed,  or the claim is not considered by the  officer,\nthe  assessment\t will  continue\t as if\tthere  has  been  no\npartition,  and\t so long as the assessment is  made  on\t the\nincome of the undivided family, the liability to satisfy the\ntax must be restricted to the estate of the family. [96 B-F]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeals Nos.  1019-1020
\nof 1963.\n<\/p>\n
Appeals from the judgment and orders dated August 3, 1961 of
\nthe Andhra Pradesh High Court in Writ Appeals Nos. 49 and 50
\nof 1960.\n<\/p>\n
92<\/span><\/p>\n
S.   V. Gupte, Solicitor-General, N. D. Karkhanis and R.  N.
\nSachthey, for the appellant (in both the appeals).
\nK.N.  Rajagopala  Sastri,  A. Ramachandran  for\t R.  Gopala-
\nkkrishnan, for the respondent (in both the appeals).
\nThe Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\nShah,\tJ.  Krishnappa\tand  his  two\tsons-Thimmayya\t and
\nVenkatanarsu-constituted  a  Hindu undivided  family.\tThey
\ncarried\t on  business  in mining in the name  and  style  of
\nKrishnappa and Sons.  The family was disrupted in 1946,\t and
\nall  its  properties were divided among the members  of\t the
\nfamily.\t The business of Krishnappa and Sons was taken\tover
\nby a firm of which the partners were Krishnappa and his\t two
\nsons.  A private limited Company styled “Krishnappa Asbestos
\nand  Barytes (Private) Ltd.” took over the business  of\t the
\nfirm  on May 21, 1947 for Rs. 2,04,000.\t Thimmayya  obtained
\nemployment  under the Company as Mines Superintendent  at  a
\nmonthly\t salary\t of  Rs. 400  and  Verkatanarsu\t as  General
\nManager at a monthly salary of Rs. 500.\n<\/p>\n
Proceedings for assessment of tax due by the Hindu undivided
\nfamily for the years 1941-42, 1942-43, 1944-45, 1945-46\t and
\n1946-47\t were pending at the time when the  Hindu  undivided
\nfamily was disrupted.  On May 20, 1946, Venkatanarsu claimed
\nbefore the Additional Income-tax Officer, Cuddapah that\t the
\nproperty of the Hindu undivided family had been\t partitioned
\namong the members indefinite portions.\tFor reasons which do
\nnot  appear from the record; this claim was not disposed  of
\ntill  June  30, 1952. In the meanwhile assessments  for\t the
\nfive  years in question were made by the Income-tax  Officer
\non diverse dates between September 30, 1948 and November 30,
\n1950,  resulting  in a tax liability of Rs.  65,750  in\t the
\naggregate for the five years.  Appeals prepared against\t the
\norders of assessment to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner
\nand  the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal proved  unsuccessful.
\nIt is common ground that it was not contended in the appeals
\nthat  in making the orders of assessment, without  disposing
\nof  the\t claim that the family was disrupted  in  1946,\t the
\nIncome-tax Officer had acted illegally.\n<\/p>\n
On  June  30, 1952 the Income-tax Officer,  Special  Circle,
\nMadras,\t made  an  order under s. 25-A\trecording  that\t the
\nproperty of the Hindu undivided family of Krishnappa and his
\nsons  was partitioned on November 2, 1946.  As the  tax\t due
\nwas  not paid the Income-tax Officer made an order under  S.
\n46(5)  of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 on June  25,\t1958
\ncalling upon the Managing Director to withhold the amount of
\ntax due from the salaries
\n93<\/span>
\npayable to the defaulters Thimmayya and Venkatanarsu and  to
\nshow the same to the credit of the Government of India.
\nThimmayya and Venkatanarsu then lodged petitions under\tArt.
\n226 of the Constitution in the High Court of Andhra  Pradesh
\nat  Hyderabad,\tpraying that writs of  certiorari  or  other
\nappropriate  writs be issued quashing the order\t dated\tJune
\n25,  1958  of the Income-tax Officer under s.  46(5).\tThey
\nfounded\t their petitions on two grounds-(i) that  after\t the
\nIncome-tax Officer recorded an order on June 30, 1952  under
\ns.  25-A(1) that the family had disrupted “with effect\tfrom
\nNovember 2, 1946”, steps taken for recovery of the amount of
\ntax  assessed without an appropriate order under s.  25-A(2)
\nwere  invalid, and (ii) arrears of tax due by the  erstwhile
\nHindu\tundivided  family  could  not  be   recovered\tfrom
\nremuneration  earned  by them as employees of  the  Company.
\nThe  petitions were decided by Seshachelapati J., in  favour
\nof  the two petitioners, and the decision was  confirmed  in
\nappeal\tby  a  Division Bench of the High  Court  of  Andhra
\nPradesh.   The High Court held that the order on  the  claim
\nmade  under s. 25-A(1) on June 30, 1952 was given  “a  clear
\nretrospective  operation”,  and the Income-tax\tOfficer\t was
\nbound  “to  give  effect  to  that  order  recognising\t the
\npartition and to follow up the consequences which flowed
\nfrom  the  order”.  In\tthe  view  of  the  High  Court\t the
\npetitioners  were  entitled  to insist\tupon  an  order\t for
\napportionment under s. 25-A(2) and without  such  an  order,
\nproceedings  for  collection of tax could not  be  commenced
\nagainst\t them under the proviso to sub-s. (2 ) of  s.  25-A.
\nAgainst\t the  order of the High Court, with  certificate  of
\nfitness,  these\t two  appeals have  been  preferred  by\t the
\nIncome-tax Officer, Cuddapah.\n<\/p>\n
Under  the  Indian Income-tax Act, 1922,  as  it  originally
\nstood,\ta Hindu undivided family was regarded by s. 3  as  a
\nunit of assessment, but no machinery was set up for  levying
\ntax or for enforcing liability to tax on the members of\t the
\nfamily,\t if  before the order of assessment the\t family\t was
\ndivided.   Absence of this machinery was more  acutely\tfelt
\nbecause\t of s. 14(1), which provided that tax shall  not  be
\npayable\t by  an\t assessee in respect of\t any  sum  which  he
\nreceived  as a member of a Hindu undivided  family.   Income
\nreceived by a Hindu undivided family could not therefore  be
\nassessed and collected from the members of the family. if at
\nthe  time of making the assessment the family  was  divided.
\nTo  rectify  what was obviously a  lacuna,  the\t Legislature
\nincorporated  s.  25-A\tfor assessment\tand  enforcement  of
\nliability  to  tax  income received  by\t a  Hindu  undivided
\nfamily, which was no
\n94<\/span>
\nlonger in existence at the date of assessment.\tBut the\t new
\nsection\t went very much beyond rectifying the defect in\t the
\nstatute\t which\tnecessitated the  amendment.   Section\t25-A
\nincorporated  by  the Indian Income-tax Amendment Act  3  of
\n1928 at the material time read as follows
\n\t      “(1)   Where,  at\t the  time  of\t making\t  an
\n\t      assessment under section 23, it is claimed  by
\n\t      or  on behalf of any member of a Hindu  family
\n\t      hitherto\t assessed   as\tundivided   that   a
\n\t      partition has taken place among the members of
\n\t      such family, the Income-tax Officer shall make
\n\t      such  inquiry there into as he may think\tfit,
\n\t      and, if he is satisfied that the joint  family
\n\t      property\t has  been  partitioned\t among\t the
\n\t      various  members\tor  groups  of\tmembers\t  in
\n\t      definite portions he shall record an order  to
\n\t      that effect.\n<\/p>\n
\t      Provided that no such order shall be  recorded
\n\t      until notices of the inquiry have been  served
\n\t      on all the members of the family.\n<\/p>\n
\t      (2)Where such an order has been passed,  or
\n\t      where any person has succeeded to a  business,
\n\t      profession or vocation formerly carried on  by
\n\t      a\t Hindu undivided family whose  joint  family
\n\t      property has been partitioned on or after\t the
\n\t      last day on which it carried on such business,
\n\t      profession or vocation, the Income-tax Officer
\n\t      shall  make an assessment of the total  income
\n\t      received\tby or on behalf of the joint  family
\n\t      as  such, as if no partition had taken  place,
\n\t      and each member or group of members shall,  in
\n\t      addition to any income-tax for which he or  it
\n\t      may  be separately liable and  notwithstanding
\n\t      anything contained in sub-section (1) of\tsec-
\n\t      tion  15, be liable for a share of the tax  on
\n\t      the  income  so  assessed\t according  to\t the
\n\t      portion of the joint family property  allotted
\n\t      to him or it; and the Income-tax Officer shall
\n\t      make  assessments accordingly on\tthe  various
\n\t      members  and groups of members  in  accordance
\n\t      with the provisions of section 23
\n\t      Provided\tthat all the members and  groups  of
\n\t      members  whose joint family property has\tbeen
\n\t      partitioned   shall  be  liable  jointly\t and
\n\t      severally\t for the tax assessed on  the  total
\n\t      income  received by or on behalf of the  joint
\n\t      family as such.\n<\/p>\n
\t      (3)Where such an order has not been passed  in
\n\t      respect of a Hindu family hitherto assessed as
\n\t      undivided,
\n\t      95<\/span>
\n\t      such family shall be deemed, for the  purposes
\n\t      of  this\tAct,  to  continue  to\tbe  a  Hindu
\n\t      undivided family.”\n<\/p>\n
The  Section  makes two substantive  provisions-(i)  that  a
\nHindu undivided family which has been assessed to tax  shall
\nbe  deemed  for the purposes of the Act, to continue  to  be
\ntreated\t as unadivided and therefore liable to be  taxed  in
\nthat  status  unless an order is passed in respect  of\tthat
\nfamily\trecording partition of its property as\tcontemplated
\nby  sub-s.  (1);  and  (ii) if at  the\ttime  of  making  an
\nassessment  it is claimed by or on behalf of the members  of
\nthe  family that the property of the joint family  has\tbeen
\npartitioned  among  the\t members or  groups  of\t members  in
\ndefinite  portions, i.e. a complete partition of the  entire
\nestate\tis made, resulting in such physical division of\t the
\nestate\tas  it\tis capable of  being  made,  the  Income-tax
\nOfficer\t shall hold an inquiry, and if he is satisfied\tthat
\nthe  partition had taken place, he shall record an order  to
\nthat effect.  Where an order has been passed, the Income-tax
\nOfficer\t must still make an assessment of the  total  income
\nreceived  by or on behalf of the undivided family as  if  no
\npartition  had taken place, and shall  thereafter  apportion
\nthe income-tax assessed on the total income received by\t the
\nfamily\tand  assess  each  member or  group  of\t members  in
\naccordance  with  the provisions of s. 23 by adding  to\t the
\nincometax  for which such member or group of members may  be
\nseparately  liable, tax proportionate to the portion of\t the
\nundivided  family property allotted to him or to the  group.
\nThis\tapportionment\tand   fresh    assessment    operate
\nnotwithstanding\t anything contained in sub-s. (1) of s.\t 14.
\nThe  proviso  to  sub-s. (2) makes a departure\tof  a  vital
\ncharacter.   Whereas  in the case of an\t assessment  of\t the
\nincome\tof  the joint family, the tax liability\t is  charged
\nupon  the  assets of the family, when upon  a  partition  an
\norder  under  sub-s. (1) has been recorded all\tmembers\t and
\ngroups\tof members are expressly declared by the proviso  to
\nbe jointly and severally liable for the tax assessed on\t the
\ntotal  income received by or on behalf of the joint  family.\n<\/p>\n
-Liability which so long as an order was not recorded  under
\ns.  25-A(1)  was  restricted  to the  assets  of  the  Hindu
\nundivided  family is by virtue of the proviso to sub-s.\t (2)
\ntransformed  when  the\torder  is  recorded,  into  personal
\nliability  of the members for the amount of tax due  by\t the
\nfamily.\n<\/p>\n
An  order  under  sub-s. (1) can only  be  made\t if  certain
\nconditions co-exist-the family in question has been hitherto
\nassesse\t das  undivided and a claim is made at the  time  of
\nmaking anassessment  that partition of the family  property
\nhas been madebetween
\n96<\/span>
\nthe members or groups in definite portions.  Sub-section (2)
\nof  s. 25-A becomes effective only if an order under S.\t 25-
\nA(1)  is made and not otherwise.  In terms the’\t sub-section
\nenacts\tthat the Income-tax Officer shall assess  the  total
\nincome\treceived  by or on behalf of the  joint\t family\t and
\napportion  it in the manner provided by sub-s. (2) where  an
\norder is passed under sub-s. (1).\n<\/p>\n
The scheme of S. 25-A is therefore clear : a Hindu undivided
\nfamily\thitherto  assessed  in respect of  its\tincome\twill
\ncontinue  to  be  assessed in  that  status  notwithstanding
\npartition of the property among its members.  If a claim  is
\nraised at the time of making an assessment that a  partition
\nhas  been  effected,  the Income-tax Officer  must  make  an
\ninquiry\t after notice to all the members of the\t family\t and
\nmake an order that the family property has been\t partitioned
\nin  definite  portions, if he is satisfied in  that  behalf.
\nThe Income-tax Officer is by law required still to make\t the
\nassessment  of the income of the Hindu undivided family,  as
\nif  no partition had taken place, and then to apportion\t the
\ntotal  tax liability and to add to the tax on  the  separate
\nincome\tof  the\t members  or  groups  of  members  the\t tax
\nproportionate  to the portion of the joint  family  property
\nallotted  to such members or groups of members and  to\tmake
\nunder  S. 23 assessment on the members accordingly.   If  no
\nclaim for recording partition is made, or if a claim is made
\nand  it is disallowed or the claim is not considered by\t the
\nIncome-tax  Officer, the assessment of the  Hindu  undivided
\nfamily\twhich has hitherto been assessed as  undivided\twill
\ncontinue  to  be made as if the Hindu undivided\t family\t has
\nreceived the income and is liable to be assessed.
\nFailure\t to make an order on the claim made does not  affect
\nthe  jurisdiction  of  the Income-tax  Officer\tto  make  an
\nassessment  of\tthe  Hindu family which\t had  hitherto\tbeen
\nassessed as undivided. The Income-tax Officer may assess the
\nincome\tof the Hindu family hitherto assessed  as  undivided
\nnotwithstanding\t partition, if no claim in that\t behalf\t has
\nbeen  made to him or if he is not satisfied about the  truth
\nof  the\t claim\tthat  the joint\t family\t property  has\tbeen
\npartitioned  in definite portions, or if on account of\tsome
\nerror or inadvertence he fails to dispose of the claim.\t  In
\nall these cases his jurisdiction to assess the income of the
\nfamily\thitherto assessed as undivided\tremains\t unaffected,
\nfor the procedure for making assessment of tax is statutory.
\nAny error or irregularity in the assessment may be rectified
\nin the manner pro-\n<\/p>\n
97<\/span><\/p>\n
vided by the statute alone, and the assessment is not liable
\nto be challenged collaterally.\n<\/p>\n
In  the present case claim was undoubtedly made at the\ttime
\nof making an assessment, that the property of the family was
\npartitioned.   The claim was not disposed of  before  making
\nthe  assessment,  and the Income-tax  Officer  proceeded  to
\nassess\tthe income of the family as if the property  of\t the
\nfamily\thad not been partitioned.  It is true that by  order
\ndated  June  30, 1952 the Income-tax Officer held  that\t the
\nproperty of the family was partitioned on November 2,  1946.
\nBut the Act contains no machinery authorising an  Income-tax
\nOfficer\t to  re-open  an assessment  of\t a  Hindu  undivided
\nfamily,\t relying upon an order made by him under s.  25-A(1)
\nafter the order of assessment is made.\tIn the present\tcase
\nappeals were filed and it is common ground that no objection
\nwas raised as to the regularity or legality of the procedure
\nfollowed   by  the  Income-tax\tOfficer.    The\t  assessment
\nproceedings were taken to the Income-tax Appellate  Tribunal
\nand the orders of assessment were confirmed.  Thereafter  it
\nwas not open to the Income-tax Officer to re-open the orders
\nof   assessment,  relying  upon\t the  order  recording\t the
\npartitions  and to seek to subvert orders which\t had  become
\nfinal  under the seal of the Income-tax Appellate  Tribunal.
\nThe  High  Court was, in our judgment, in error\t in  holding
\nthat an order of assessment which has become final is liable
\nto be re-opened under s. 25-A(2) by the Income-tax  Officer,
\nwhen an order under s. 25-A (1) is passed by him  subsequent
\nto the order of assessment.\n<\/p>\n
But  the appeals filed by the Income-tax Officer must  still
\nfail.  Order recording the partition subsequent to the\tdate
\non  which the order of assessment was made must for  reasons
\naforementioned be   ignored  and  tax levied as if  no\tsuch
\norder was made.\t The effect of that step however is that  in
\nthe   absence  of  an  order  under  s.\t 25-A(1)   and\t the
\nconsequential proceedings under sub-s. (2) liability to\t pay
\ntax  must  rest\t upon the property of  the  Hindu  undivided
\nfamily\t: it cannot be enforced against the members  of\t the
\nfamily\tpersonally.   The Income-tax Officer has  sought  by
\nresorting  to s. 46(5) to attach the remuneration earned  by
\nThimmayya  and\tVenkatanarsu  as  employees  of\t  Krishnappa
\nAsbestos & Barytes (Private) Ltd. this he was incompetent to
\ndo. So long as the assessment is made of income of the Hindu
\nundivided  family,  liability  to satisfy the  tax  must  be
\nrestricted  to the estate of the family : after an order  of
\npartition is recorded
\n98<\/span>
\nand  assessment is made under sub-s. (2) of S. 25-A but\t not
\ntill then, the proviso to that sub-section will operate.
\nThe Solicitor-General contended that the second paragraph of
\nsub-s.\t(2)  which  is\tin the form  of\t a  proviso,  is  in
\nsubstance a substantive provision imposing joint and several
\nliability  for tax assessed on the total income received  by
\nor on behalf of the joint family against all members of\t the
\nfamily.\t   The\tcontention  is\tthat  by  the  proviso\t the
\nLegislature  intended  that in respect of the  income  of  a
\nHindu undivided family, once partition is effected,  whether
\nthe  partition\tis  recorded or not under  sub-s.  (1),\t all
\nmembers\t of the family will be jointly and severally  liable
\nfor  the tax assessed on the total income received by or  on
\nbehalf of the family.  But howsoever read the proviso yields
\nno such meaning.\n<\/p>\n
The scheme of the section is that so long as there is an  of
\nthe Hindu undivided family, the liability for payment of the
\ntax  is on the property of the family and not personally  on
\nthe members.  Where an order that the property of the family
\nhas  been  partitioned\tis recorded, the  liability  of\t the
\nmembers has to be apportioned in the manner set out in\tsub-
\nsection,  but  one  of the  incidents  of  assessment  after
\napportionment  of tax liability is That the members  of\t the
\nfamily\tstand  jointly and severally liable for\t the  entire
\namount of tax assessed against the family.
\nIn  the present case no orders were recorded by the  Income-
\ntax Officer at the time of making assessments in respect  of
\nthe  five years, and therefore no personal liability of\t the
\nmembers of the family arose under the proviso to sub-s. (2).
\nThe  Income-tax Officer does not seek to reach in the  hands
\nof  Thimmayya and Venkatanarsu the property which  was\tonce
\nthe  property  of the Hindu undivided family;  he  seeks  to
\nreach the personal income of the two respondents.  That\t the
\nIncome-tax Officer could do only if by virtue of the proviso
\nto  sub-section (2) a personal liability has arisen  against
\nthem.  In the absence of an order under sub-s. (1), however,
\nsuch  a liability does not arise against the members of\t the
\nHindu undivided family, even if the family is disrupted.
\nWe  are,  therefore  of the view, but not  for\tthe  reasons
\nmentioned  by  the High Court, that because there  has\tbeen
\nbefore the orders of assessment no order recording that\t the
\nproperty  of  the  family has  been  partitioned  among\t the
\nmembers, the two dents are not personally liable to  satisfy
\ntax  due by the joint family.  The remedy of the  Income-tax
\nauthorities in the circumstances of the case, was to proceed
\nagainst the property,
\n99<\/span>
\nif any, of the Hindu undivided family.\tThat admittedly they
\nhave not done.\n<\/p>\n
The  order of the High Court must, therefore, be  confirmed’
\nand  the  appeals dismissed with costs.\t There will  be\t one
\nhearing fee.\n<\/p>\n
Appeals dismissed.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Additional Income-Tax Officer, … vs A. Thimmayyaand Others on 9 November, 1964 Equivalent citations: 1965 AIR 1238, 1965 SCR (2) 91 Author: S C. Bench: Shah, J.C. PETITIONER: ADDITIONAL INCOME-TAX OFFICER, CUDDAPAH Vs. RESPONDENT: A. THIMMAYYAAND OTHERS DATE OF JUDGMENT: 09\/11\/1964 BENCH: SHAH, J.C. BENCH: SHAH, J.C. SUBBARAO, K. SIKRI, S.M. […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-246610","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nAdditional Income-Tax Officer, ... vs A. Thimmayyaand Others on 9 November, 1964 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/additional-income-tax-officer-vs-a-thimmayyaand-others-on-9-november-1964\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Additional Income-Tax Officer, ... vs A. Thimmayyaand Others on 9 November, 1964 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/additional-income-tax-officer-vs-a-thimmayyaand-others-on-9-november-1964\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1964-11-08T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-09-17T12:13:37+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"18 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/additional-income-tax-officer-vs-a-thimmayyaand-others-on-9-november-1964#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/additional-income-tax-officer-vs-a-thimmayyaand-others-on-9-november-1964\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Additional Income-Tax Officer, … vs A. Thimmayyaand Others on 9 November, 1964\",\"datePublished\":\"1964-11-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-09-17T12:13:37+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/additional-income-tax-officer-vs-a-thimmayyaand-others-on-9-november-1964\"},\"wordCount\":3075,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/additional-income-tax-officer-vs-a-thimmayyaand-others-on-9-november-1964#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/additional-income-tax-officer-vs-a-thimmayyaand-others-on-9-november-1964\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/additional-income-tax-officer-vs-a-thimmayyaand-others-on-9-november-1964\",\"name\":\"Additional Income-Tax Officer, ... vs A. Thimmayyaand Others on 9 November, 1964 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1964-11-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-09-17T12:13:37+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/additional-income-tax-officer-vs-a-thimmayyaand-others-on-9-november-1964#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/additional-income-tax-officer-vs-a-thimmayyaand-others-on-9-november-1964\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/additional-income-tax-officer-vs-a-thimmayyaand-others-on-9-november-1964#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Additional Income-Tax Officer, … vs A. Thimmayyaand Others on 9 November, 1964\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Additional Income-Tax Officer, ... vs A. Thimmayyaand Others on 9 November, 1964 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/additional-income-tax-officer-vs-a-thimmayyaand-others-on-9-november-1964","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Additional Income-Tax Officer, ... vs A. Thimmayyaand Others on 9 November, 1964 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/additional-income-tax-officer-vs-a-thimmayyaand-others-on-9-november-1964","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1964-11-08T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-09-17T12:13:37+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"18 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/additional-income-tax-officer-vs-a-thimmayyaand-others-on-9-november-1964#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/additional-income-tax-officer-vs-a-thimmayyaand-others-on-9-november-1964"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Additional Income-Tax Officer, … vs A. Thimmayyaand Others on 9 November, 1964","datePublished":"1964-11-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-09-17T12:13:37+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/additional-income-tax-officer-vs-a-thimmayyaand-others-on-9-november-1964"},"wordCount":3075,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/additional-income-tax-officer-vs-a-thimmayyaand-others-on-9-november-1964#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/additional-income-tax-officer-vs-a-thimmayyaand-others-on-9-november-1964","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/additional-income-tax-officer-vs-a-thimmayyaand-others-on-9-november-1964","name":"Additional Income-Tax Officer, ... vs A. Thimmayyaand Others on 9 November, 1964 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1964-11-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-09-17T12:13:37+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/additional-income-tax-officer-vs-a-thimmayyaand-others-on-9-november-1964#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/additional-income-tax-officer-vs-a-thimmayyaand-others-on-9-november-1964"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/additional-income-tax-officer-vs-a-thimmayyaand-others-on-9-november-1964#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Additional Income-Tax Officer, … vs A. Thimmayyaand Others on 9 November, 1964"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/246610","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=246610"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/246610\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=246610"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=246610"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=246610"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}