Income from an impartible estate is to be treated as the income of the holder for the time being and not as the income of a Hindu undivided family.

1. The question before us is:

Whether in respect of the following three sums, viz., Rs. 8,436 being income assessable under the head property, Rs. 998 under business and Rs. 3,755 under other sources (quarries and fisheries) the petitioner was rightly taxed as an individual or whether he should have been taxed as the representative of a Hindu undivided family.

2. The assessee, the Rajah of Bobbili, is the present holder of the impartible estate of Bobbili. During the previous year (1st April 1934 to 31st March 1935) he was also the Chief Minister to the Government of Madras. He is, besides, the managing member of a Hindu undivided family of which he and his brother are the senior co-parceners. For the assessment year 1935-36 his total income from all sources liable to Income Tax was ascertained to be Rs. 64,083 made up of the following items:

1. Salaries. ... Rs. 49,399 2. Interest on securities. ... 420 3. Property. ... 8,446 4. Business, money lending (Rupees 998) and Kerosine Oil Agency (Rs. 525) ... 1,523 5. Other sources: Dividends (Rs. 540) and quarries and fisheries (Rs. 3,755) ... 4,295 _________ Total Rs. 64,083

3. He was assessed both to Income Tax and super-tax, super-tax being levied as on an individual. With the exception of certain amounts it was admitted that the Rajah was rightly assessed as an individual. The sums about which there is a dispute are Rs. 8,436 from property, Rs. 998 from money lending business and Rs. 3,755 from other sources (fisheries and quarries). These sums are income derived from the impartible estate. The assessees contention is that they are income of the joint family and therefore the joint family should have been assessed as such in respect of them and not the Rajah as an individual. The point for consideration is whether for purposes of Income Tax the income from the impartible estate is income of the joint family of which the Rajah is the manager; and in this connexion certain principles with regard to impartible estates must be stated; and they are that from the very nature of the estate there can be no right of partition and that except in Madras no co-parcener can restrain alienations by the head of the family though the right to maintenance and of survivorship may exist. The distinction between an impartible estate and a joint family estate has now been made clear in a number of decisions. What has now to be considered is the income from such an estate, the Income Tax Commissioners claim being that this income must be regarded for the purposes of Income Tax as the income of an individual and in support of his claim a number of cases have been cited. Amongst those cases, which in our opinion lend considerable support to the Income Tax Commissioners contention, is Bhivaprasad Singh v. Prayagkumari Debee, a decision of the Privy Council. The litigation in that case related to the succession to the estate of one Raja Durgaprasad who died childless survived by three widows who were the plaintiffs in the suit and the respondents in the first appeal. The defendant Shibaprasad Singh was a collateral relative of the deceased Raja. The parties were governed by the Mitakshara law. The chief item of property was the impartible estate but the Raja died possessed of considerable other Immovable property, also of cash, deposits in banks, jewellery and other moveable property. Upon the Rajas death the defendant took possession of the impartible estate and also other property of the Raja claiming that it passed to him by survivorship. The plaintiffs alleged that the family had ceased to be joint, and claimed the estate under Hindu law, claiming the other Immovable and moveable "property as self-acquisitions.

4. Amongst the questions of law dealt with was whether the holder of an impartible estate can incorporate with it property either moveable or immovable, so as to make that property descend according to the rule of primogeniture governing the estate. It was held that the blending of income