1994 (10) TMI 57 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues:
Assessability of the assessee in the status of a Hindu undivided family; Validity of reopening assessments under section 147(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Assessability of the assessee in the status of a Hindu undivided family:
The Tribunal, based on a previous decision, held that the assessee was not liable to be assessed as a Hindu undivided family due to the provisions of the Kerala Joint Hindu Family System (Abolition) Act. The Revenue sought reference of this question under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, but the court dismissed the application, stating that the matter was already concluded by a previous decision. The assessments in question were reopened under section 147(b) of the Act, but the Income-tax Officer's attempt to assess the assessee as a Hindu undivided family was deemed bad in law by the Commissioner (Appeals). The Tribunal upheld this decision, ruling that the proceedings initiated under section 147(b) were without jurisdiction and that the assessee was not liable to be assessed as a Hindu undivided family. The Revenue requested reference of the questions related to reopening and the status of the assessee, but the court declined, stating that no purpose would be served by referring the questions as the matter was already concluded against the Revenue by previous decisions.

Validity of reopening assessments under section 147(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961:
The assessments in question were reopened under section 147(b) based on a different court decision suggesting that the assessee should be assessed as a Hindu undivided family. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) found the reopening to be legally flawed and set aside the assessments. The Tribunal upheld this decision, stating that the proceedings initiated under section 147(b) were without jurisdiction and that the assessee was not liable to be assessed as a Hindu undivided family. The Revenue sought reference of the questions related to the reopening, arguing that the Tribunal's decision was unsustainable. However, the court declined to grant the Revenue's request, emphasizing that no purpose would be served by referring the questions as the matter was already concluded against the Revenue by previous decisions.