http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 23
PETITIONER: THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,MADHYA PRADESH AND BHOPAL
Vs.
RESPONDENT: SODRA DEVI(with connected appeal)
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 17/05/1957
BENCH: BHAGWATI, NATWARLAL H. BENCH: BHAGWATI, NATWARLAL H. DAS, S.K. KAPUR, J.L.
CITATION: 1957 AIR 832 1958 SCR 1
ACT: Income-tax-Computation of total income-’Individual’, Meaning of-Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (XI Of 1922), as amended by the Indian Income-tax (Amendment) Act, 1937 (IV Of 1937), S. 16(3).
HEADNOTE: The common question of law for determination in these two appeals was whether the word ’individual ’ in s. 16(3) of the ’Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, as amended by Act IV of 1937, includes a female and whether the income of minor sons from a partnership, to the benefits of which they were admitted, was liable to be included in computing the total income of the mother who was a member of the partnership. Held, (Per Bhagwati and Kapur jj., S. K. Das J. dissenting) that the question must be answered in the negative. The word ’individual’ occurring in s. 16(3) of the Indian Income-tax Act, as amended by Act IV Of 1937, means only a male and does not include a female. Shrimati Chanda Devi v. The Commissioner of Income-tax, (1950) 18 I.T.R. 944 and Musta Quima Begum, In re, (1953) 23 I.T.R. 345, disapproved. Where the Legislature uses ambiguous language in enacting a statute, as it has undo...