9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Whether the ground challenging the Income-tax Officer's order refusing to record partition of Hindu undivided family could be raised in the appeal where the quantum of the assessee's total income had also been disputed? Analysis: The judgment pertains to a case where the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal referred a question to the High Court regarding the challenge to the Income-tax Officer's order refusing to record a partition of a Hindu undivided family in an appeal where the total income of the assessee was disputed. The assessee, Chhaganlal, had his assessment completed as an individual despite claiming to be a Hindu undivided family. The Income-tax Officer rejected the claim of Hindu undivided family status based on various factors, leading to the computation of income and tax liability as an individual. The assessee then appealed to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, arguing that the business belonged to the Hindu undivided family, but the appeal was dismissed for not separately challenging the order under section 171 regarding partition. Subsequently, the Tribunal found in favor of the assessee, determining that the business indeed belonged to the Hindu undivided family. However, the Tribunal upheld the rejection of the partition claim due to the lack of a separate appeal challenging the Income-tax Officer's decision on partition. The High Court considered whether a composite appeal, challenging both the assessment order and the partition issue, was maintainable. The assessee contended that the rejection of the partition challenge due to the absence of a separate appeal was a hyper-technical approach, citing precedents that supported the admissibility of composite appeals. The Revenue argued that different procedures apply to appeals against assessment orders and partition orders, necessitating separate appeals. The High Court emphasized that unless the law explicitly prohibits composite appeals, they should not be dismissed as incompetent. In this case, both the assessment and partition orders were challenged within the stipulated time through a composite appeal, justifying the consideration of the partition issue in the appeal. The rejection of the Hindu undivided family status led to the dismissal of the partition claim, indicating their interdependence. The High Court concluded that the composite appeal should have been entertained, and the rejection of the partition challenge solely due to the absence of a separate appeal was unjustified. As the claim for partition was linked to the Hindu undivided family status, both aspects should have been considered together. Therefore, the High Court answered the referred question in favor of the assessee, disposing of the reference without costs.
|
