Whether a person with wife and two daughters only can have HUF?

Whether only one male member is suffice to form an HUF is now legally well settled as per decision of Supreme Court in case of Gowli Buddana vs CIT (1966) 60 ITR 293 . An HUFis no different than a joint property. The concept of HUF is very simple codified in Hindu law .A Hindu joint family consists of lineally descended persons -like Great Grand father, Grand father ,father,uncle,son etc.All these persons have right over common ancestral property by birth. The dictum that once Hindu undivided family always Hindu undivided family” has been accepted all along .

The expression ‘Hindu undivided family’ in the Income-tax Act is same as a joint family which may consist of a single male member and widows of deceased male members. In DrPrakash B Sultane v CIT ([2005] 148 Taxman 353) the Bombay High Court held that that the property does not lose its character merely because at one point of time there was only one male member or one co-parcener.

In this case , the assessee was a doctor by profession assessable in his hands as an individual. The assessee was a member of a bigger Hindu undivided family which was partitioned on January 1, 1972. At the time of partition and right upto January 22, 1980 the assessee was a bachelor. During these years, the income from assets on partition was assessed in his hands as his individual income.

When the assessee got married on January 22, 1980, he claimed that the income from assets received on partition is assessable in status of the Hindu undivided family consisting of himself and his wife.

The Assessing Officer observed that the decisions referred to by the assessee were considered in the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in CIT v. VishnukumarBhaiya (142 I.T.R. 357). Relying upon this judgment, he rejected the application of theassessee and continued to assess his income from the Hindu undivided family property in his individual capacity. In the above case also, the assessee had obtained his share on partition before his marriage and, on his marriage, had claimed the status of Hindu undivided family. His claim was rejected on the ground that “until a son is born the status of the assessee would continue to be that of an individual.
However, the High Court ruled otherwise and upheld the contention of the assessee that once HUF property always HUF property