What was the main legal question in CIT v. Sodra Devi?

Whether the word “individual” in Section 16(3) of the 1922 Income-tax Act covered a female parent, so that her minor children’s partnership income could be clubbed with her income.

How did the Court interpret “individual” in Section 16(3)?

The Supreme Court read “individual” in that context as referring to the male assessee, given the purpose of preventing tax avoidance through partnerships with wife and minor children.

Which rule of interpretation guided the decision?

The mischief rule from Heydon’s Case—examining the prior law, the mischief, the legislative remedy, and the intended scope of that remedy.

What was the outcome for Sodra Devi?

Her minor children’s partnership income was not to be included in her total income.

Why is this case still studied?

It shows how purpose and legislative context can narrow a seemingly broad word like “individual,” shaping clubbing provisions in tax law.

The Commissioner of Income Tax v. Sodra Devi

Does “individual” in Section 16(3) of the 1922 Act include a female parent for clubbing a minor’s partnership income?

Supreme Court of India 1957 Bench: SC AIR 1957 SC 832 Tax Law ~7 min read

Author: Gulzar Hashmi | India | Published: October 31, 2025

Section 16(3) Mischief Rule Clubbing of Income HUF

CASE_TITLE

The Commissioner of Income Tax v. Sodra Devi (AIR 1957 SC 832)

PRIMARY_KEYWORDS

Section 16(3) Meaning of “Individual” Clubbing of Income

SECONDARY_KEYWORDS

Heydon’s Case Mischief Rule HUF & Partnerships

Slug

the-commissioner-of-income-tax-v-sodra-devi

AUTHOR_NAME

Gulzar Hashmi

LOCATION

India

PUBLISH_DATE

October 31, 2025

Quick Summary

This case tests the reach of the word “individual” in Section 16(3) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The tax department wanted to add a mother’s minor children’s partnership income to her total income. The Supreme Court said no. Reading the section through the mischief rule, the Court held that Parliament aimed at male assessees who used partnerships with wife and minor children to reduce tax. The mother’s situation was not the mischief targeted.

Issues

Does “individual” in Section 16(3) include a female parent?
If not, can the minor children’s partnership income be clubbed with the mother’s income?

Rules

Mischief Rule (Heydon’s Case): Identify (1) the prior law, (2) the mischief or gap, (3) the remedy chosen by Parliament, and (4) the purpose for which the remedy was adopted. Apply the rule to read the statute in a way that cures the mischief.

Section 16(3), 1922 Act: Clubbing provision for spouse’s and minor child’s income in specified situations, tied to the “individual” parent partner.

Facts (Timeline)

Before Oct 18, 1944: Smt. Sodra Devi, her husband, and their three major and three minor sons were a joint Hindu family.

Post-partition: Sodra Devi and her three major sons formed a partnership to run spinning/weaving mills and an agency business.

Minors admitted to benefits: The three minor sons were admitted to the benefits of the partnership.

Tax question: Could the minors’ partnership income be included in the mother’s total income under Section 16(3) by treating her as the relevant “individual”?

Arguments

Appellant (Income Tax Authorities)

“Individual” means a human being of either sex.
Clubbing rule should apply to any parent-partner, including a mother.
Purpose is anti-avoidance: prevent shifting income to wife/minor children.

Respondent (Sodra Devi)

Section 16(3) targets an “individual” who can have a wife and minor child—text points to a male assessee.
The mischief was about men creating nominal partnerships with wife/minor children.
Clubbing her minor children’s income extends the provision beyond its purpose.

Judgment

Held: The words “individual” and “such individual” in Section 16(3) refer, in context, to the male assessee. The section was enacted to block tax avoidance by men using partnerships with their wife and minor children. The mother’s case was outside that mischief. Therefore, the minors’ income was not to be included in Sodra Devi’s total income.

Ratio

Statutory words take color from their setting and purpose. In Section 16(3), “individual” is tied to a design to counter a specific avoidance path used by male assessees. Thus, despite its general meaning elsewhere, “individual” here is read as male for clubbing purposes under the 1922 Act.

Why It Matters

Purpose-driven reading: Shows how courts limit broad words based on legislative aim.
Tax anti-avoidance focus: Clubbing rules are context-sensitive and target specific schemes.
Interpretation template: A model for applying the mischief rule in fiscal statutes.

Key Takeaways

“Individual” in Section 16(3), 1922 Act, was read as male in context.
Mischief rule narrowed a generally broad word to fit the statute’s aim.
Mother’s minor children’s partnership income could not be clubbed with her income.

Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook

Mnemonic: “Man in the Mirror” — Section 16(3) reflects the man Parliament saw using wife/minor to shift income.

Mirror the mischief: Ask, “Whose trick was targeted?”
Match the word: Fit “individual” to that target.
Mind the mother: Not part of that targeted mischief → no clubbing.

IRAC Outline

Issue	Rule	Application	Conclusion
Does “individual” in Section 16(3) include a female parent?	Mischief rule; Section 16(3) clubbing scheme.	Legislative aim: stop male assessees routing income via wife/minors. Context narrows “individual.”	“Individual” here = male assessee; no clubbing for the mother.

Glossary

Clubbing of Income: Adding someone else’s income to a taxpayer’s income due to a legal rule.
Mischief Rule: Interpretation that targets the specific problem the statute set out to cure.
HUF: A Hindu Undivided Family recognized under Indian tax law.