9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Assessment of a group of 33 individuals as a Hindu undivided family for the assessment year 1971-72. Analysis: The case involved the assessment of a group of 33 individuals as a Hindu undivided family for the assessment year 1971-72. The respondent-assessee belonged to a "Marumakathayam" family in the erstwhile Malabar area, possessing significant movable and immovable properties. Initially, the family filed returns as a Hindu undivided family until the assessment year 1968-69. However, a registered agreement in 1961 led to a decision for separation among family members, with an arbitrator appointed to oversee the division. The arbitrator's award in 1967 dictated that properties be administered as per the 1962 agreement modification. Despite this, the assessee filed returns for the year 1971-72 as a Hindu undivided family. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Tribunal questioned the existence of a Hindu undivided family for that year, leading to the reference of the legal question to the High Court. The High Court, considering previous decisions and the Supreme Court's ruling in Kalloomal Tapeswari Prasad's case, determined that the group of individuals could not be assessed as a Hindu undivided family for the year 1971-72. The Court highlighted that the decision in Sarada Thampatty's case was implicitly overruled by the Supreme Court's ruling. The Court's decision aligned with a previous batch of cases where a similar question was answered in favor of the Revenue and against the assessee. Therefore, the High Court answered the question in the affirmative, supporting the Revenue's position and rejecting the assessee's claim to be assessed as a Hindu undivided family for the assessment year 1971-72. In conclusion, the High Court's judgment emphasized the legal precedents set by previous decisions and the Supreme Court's ruling, leading to the denial of the group of individuals' status as a Hindu undivided family for the assessment year 1971-72. The Court's decision aligned with previous cases and upheld the Revenue's position, indicating that the group of individuals could not be assessed as a Hindu undivided family based on the facts and circumstances of the case.
|
