9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Interpretation of Income-tax Act, 1961 regarding assessment of income. 2. Validity of protective assessment. 3. Clubbing of income in the hands of the husband. 4. Legality of successive assessment in different hands. 5. Application of substantive assessment in determining disputed income. Analysis: The High Court of Allahabad, in this judgment delivered by R. K. Gulati J., addressed the issue raised by the Commissioner of Income-tax regarding the cancellation of an assessment made in the case of an assessee, Smt. Durgawati Singh, based on the return filed by her. The respondent-assessee had filed her return for the assessment year 1973-74, showing income from a proprietary business and share income from a partnership business. The Income-tax Officer found that the assessee was a benamidar of her husband and held that the income should be clubbed with the husband's income for assessment. However, a protective assessment was also completed in the assessee's hands voluntarily. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner cancelled the protective assessment, which was upheld by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, leading to the reference to the High Court. The Court emphasized the principle that when there is doubt about the liable person for assessment, parallel proceedings may be taken against both individuals, and alternative assessments can be framed. While protective assessment is permissible, income-tax appellate authorities cannot make protective orders. The law mandates that tax should be levied on the person who earned the income and is liable to pay tax on it. In this case, the Court noted that the husband's substantive assessment had been maintained, and therefore, the disputed income could not be upheld in the hands of the assessee. The Court referenced a separate judgment where the clubbing of disputed income in the husband's hands was upheld. Considering the above reasoning and the fact that the husband's assessment had been upheld, the Court answered the question in favor of the assessee and against the Department. The judgment highlighted the importance of determining the correct person liable for tax assessment and reiterated that income should only be assessed in the hands of the individual who actually earned it. No costs were awarded in this matter.
|
