Skip to content


Smt. Kesho Bai Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, U.P. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectDirect Taxation
CourtAllahabad High Court
Decided On
Case NumberIncome-tax Reference No. 233 of 1960
Reported in[1965]56ITR426(All)
AppellantSmt. Kesho Bai
RespondentCommissioner of Income-tax, U.P.
Excerpt:
- - an appeal by the assessee contesting the inclusion of the share of the profits was dismissed by the appellate assistant commissioner and thereafter a further appeal before the income-tax appellate tribunal was also unsuccessful......occurring in section 16(3)(a)(ii) of the income-tax act means and includes male or both male and female ?'there was controversy of judicial opinion on the question whether the word 'individual' in section 16(3)(a)(ii) could mean both a male and a female, but the difference has since been resolved by the decision of the supreme court in damayanti sahni v. commissioner of income-tax, where it has been held that the word 'individual' can mean only a male and does not refer to a female. in view of the law laid down by the supreme court, we answer the question by saying that the word 'individual' occurring in section 16(3)(a)(ii) of the act refers to a male only and not to a female also. the question is answered accordingly.a copy of this judgment shall be sent under the seal of the court.....
Judgment:

PATHAK J. - The assessee, Smt. Kesho Bai, was a partner in two firms, M/s. Ramprasad Prem Kumar and M/s. Gopal & Co. Her son, Vinod Kumar, who was a minor at the time, was admitted to the benefits of partnerships in the two firms. For the assessment years 1950-51, 1951-52 and 1952-53, the Income-tax Officer included the share of the profits falling to the minor in the assessment of the assessee, and justified the inclusion by reference to the provisions of section 16(3)(a)(ii) of the Indian Income-tax Act. An appeal by the assessee contesting the inclusion of the share of the profits was dismissed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and thereafter a further appeal before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was also unsuccessful. At the instance of the assessee the Appellate Tribunal has referred the following question to this court :

'Whether the word individual occurring in section 16(3)(a)(ii) of the Income-tax Act means and includes male or both male and female ?'

There was controversy of judicial opinion on the question whether the word 'individual' in section 16(3)(a)(ii) could mean both a male and a female, but the difference has since been resolved by the decision of the Supreme Court in Damayanti Sahni v. Commissioner of Income-tax, where it has been held that the word 'individual' can mean only a male and does not refer to a female. In view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court, we answer the question by saying that the word 'individual' occurring in section 16(3)(a)(ii) of the Act refers to a male only and not to a female also. The question is answered accordingly.

A copy of this judgment shall be sent under the seal of the court and the signature of the Registrar to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. The assessee shall be entitled to her costs which we assessee at Rs. 200. Counsels fee is also assessed at Rs. 200.

Question answered accordingly.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //