9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Determining the genuineness of the entity styled as Sh. P. N. Beri and Sons (HUF) and the assessment of income in the status of HUF on a substantive basis. Analysis: The Commissioner of Income-tax filed petitions under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, seeking to direct the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to refer two questions of law to the High Court. The questions pertained to the acceptance of the genuineness of Sh. P. N. Beri and Sons (HUF) created by legal heirs after the death of Sh. P. N. Beri and his father, Sh. K. R. Beri. The assessing authority initially held that the HUF was not genuine and that Sh. K. R. Beri never constituted an HUF during his lifetime. The Assessing Officer relied on previous orders and made a protective assessment. However, the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) allowed the appeals, stating that P. N. Beri and Sons genuinely constituted an HUF, and assessments should have been made on a substantive basis. The main issue revolved around the genuineness of the entity, with the Assessing Officer basing decisions on previous orders. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal reversed the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)'s order, emphasizing the genuine nature of the partnership firm. The Tribunal noted that J. K. Beri (HUF) was regularly assessed, and partial partitions had taken place. The Tribunal's order became final, leading to the conclusion that the Assessing Officer's concerns about the genuineness of P. N. Beri and Sons (HUF) were no longer valid. As a result, the court found no question of law requiring determination. In conclusion, the court dismissed the applications, stating that the acceptance of the appeal by the non-petitioner before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal eliminated the need for further adjudication on the genuineness of P. N. Beri and Sons (HUF). The court held that no question of law arose for determination based on the circumstances and previous tribunal decisions.
|
