Judgment

KHANNA, J.: - This appeal on certificate is against the judgment of the Mysore High Court whereby the High Court answered the following question referred to it under S. 256 (1) of the Income-tax Act, l961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) in the affirmative in favour of the revenue and against the assessee-appellant:

"Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the assessee was, rightly assessed in the status of an individual for the assessment year 1964-65?"

2. C. Krishna Prasad assessee-appellant along with his father Krishnaswami Naidu and brother C. Krishna Kumar formed a Hindu undivided family up to October 30, 1958, when there was a partition between Krishnaswami Naidu and his two sons. In the said partition the assessee got some house properties and vacant sites. The partition was recognised by the department and an order under Section 25-A of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 was passed recognising the partition with effect from November 1, 1958.

3. On the date of partition and also during the relevant period, i.e., the year ending on March 31, 1964, the assessee was unmarried. Up to the year 1963-64 the assessee was assessed in the status of an individual. For the assessment year 1964-65 the assessee filed a return showing his status as an individual. In the course, however, of the assessment proceedings for the assessment year 1964-65 the assessee claimed that he should be assessed in the status of a Hindu undivided family. The income-tax officer did not accept the claim of the assessee and held that his status was that of an individual. The order of the income-tax officer was affirmed on appeal by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and on further appeal by the Appellate Tribunal. M the instance of the assesses, the question reproduced above was referred to the High Court. The High Court, as already mentioned, agreed with the departmental authorities and answered the question against the assessee.

4. The short question which arises for determination, as would appear from the resume of facts given above, is whether an unmarried male Hindu or partition of a joint Hindu family can be assessed in the status of a Hindu undivided family even though no other person besides him is a member of the alleged family. This Court in the case of Gowli Buddanna v. Commr. of Income-tax, Mysore (1966) 60 ITR 293 refrained from expressing an opinion on the point "whether a Hindu undivided family may for the purposes of the Indian Income-tax Act be treated as a taxable entity when it consists of a single member - male or female."

5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that the question which arises for determination in this appeal should be answered against the assessee.

6. Section 4 of the Act provides for the charging of income-tax on the total income of every person subject to the conditions prescribed in that section. "Person" has been defined in Section 2 (31) of the Act and includes inter alia, an individual and a Hindu undivided family. The inherent fallacy of the case set up on behalf of the assessee-appellant, in our opinion, is that according to him a single individual can constitute a Hindu undivided family and be assessed as such. "Family" connotes a group of people related by blood or marriage. According to Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, 3rd Ed. the word "Family" means the group consisting of parents and their children, whether living together or not; in wider sense, all those who are nearly connected by blood or affinity; a person s children regarded collectively; those descended or claiming descent from a common ancestor; a house, kindred, lineage; a race; a people or group of peoples. According to Aristotle (Politics I), it is the characteristic of man that he alone has any sense of good and evil, or just and unjust, and the association of living beings who have this sense make a family and a State. It would follow from the above that the word "Family" always s