9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Recognition of partition of Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) property during the financial year relevant to assessment year 1987-88. Analysis: The case involved a dispute regarding the recognition of the partition of the HUF property during the assessment year 1987-88. The Assessing Officer initially refused to recognize the total partition based on various evidences, including the non-notarized memorandum of partition, incomplete application for a certificate under section 230A, and discrepancies in the documents submitted. The matter was appealed, and the Deputy Commissioner directed a re-examination. However, the Assessing Officer again concluded that there was no genuine partition based on the evidence presented. The appellant contended that the partition was valid and supported by a detailed paper book containing witness certificates and other documents. The appellant argued that the partition was recorded in writing, signed by all members, and witnessed by a notary and an advocate. Additionally, certificates from a chartered accountant and an advocate supported the claim of partition. The appellant also highlighted that the sale proceeds were credited to individual members' accounts, contrary to the Assessing Officer's findings. The Departmental Representative (D.R.) opposed the appellant's claims, emphasizing that crucial documents were not submitted during the assessment proceedings. The D.R. argued that the failure to mention the partition in various legal documents cast doubt on the validity of the claim. The D.R. maintained that the Assessing Officer's decision was justified based on the evidence available. The Tribunal analyzed the facts and arguments presented. It noted that the appellant did not mention the partition until filing the return in 1989, despite the partition allegedly occurring in 1987. The Tribunal found discrepancies in the documents submitted, such as the non-notarized memorandum of partition and the absence of partition details in relevant agreements and deeds. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the Assessing Officer's decision, stating that the claim of partition appeared to be an afterthought. The Tribunal emphasized that until the partition of the HUF was officially recognized under section 171, the property would be considered joint family property for tax assessment purposes. Therefore, all appeals were dismissed, and the income and wealth assessments were to remain in the hands of the HUF until the partition was duly recognized.
|
