9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Status of the assessee for tax assessment. 2. Clubbing of income earned by family members with the income of the Hindu undivided family (HUF). Summary: Issue 1: Status of the Assessee for Tax Assessment The assessee, Ambika Prasad, filed returns for the assessment years 1973-74 to 1977-78 claiming the status of an individual. However, the Income-tax Officer (ITO) assessed him in the status of a Hindu undivided family (HUF). The ITO rejected the assessee's claim of partition in the family, citing the partition deed as a fabricated document. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner confirmed the assessments, noting that no claim u/s 171 of the Income-tax Act was lodged, nor was any order recognizing the partition made. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal upheld these assessments, leading to the reference of the consolidated question of law to the High Court. The High Court held that u/s 171(1), a Hindu family hitherto assessed as undivided shall continue to be deemed as such unless a partition is recognized by the ITO. The court emphasized that the family need not be continuously assessed without any break to fall under the expression "hitherto assessed as undivided family." The court concluded that the family continues to be joint for tax purposes unless an order u/s 171(3) recognizing the partition is made. Therefore, the Tribunal was legally right in assessing the income in the status of a HUF. Issue 2: Clubbing of Income Earned by Family Members The assessee contended that the income earned by his brothers, Panna Lal and Prem Chand, from "sonari" (goldsmith work) should not be clubbed with the HUF's income as it was earned through their personal skill and labor. The Tribunal dismissed this contention, noting that even in earlier years, such income was treated as HUF income. The High Court observed that the Tribunal did not investigate whether the income earned by Panna Lal and Prem Chand was from their personal skill and labor without the aid of family funds. The court cited several Supreme Court cases, emphasizing that income earned by personal skill and labor should not be clubbed with HUF income unless there is a real and sufficient connection with the family funds. The Tribunal was found to have relied on the principle of res judicata without independently verifying the facts for the years in dispute. The High Court directed the Tribunal to rehear the appeals and determine whether the income earned by Panna Lal and Prem Chand from "sonari" was connected to the family business and whether it caused any detriment to the family assets. Reformulated Questions: 1. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally right in taking the view that the assessment was liable to be made in the status of a Hindu undivided family? 2. Whether there was any material before the Tribunal to justify confirming the clubbing of the income of Panna Lal and Prem Chand from sonari business as income of the Hindu undivided family? The first question was answered in the affirmative and in favor of the Department. The second question was returned unanswered with directions for the Tribunal to rehear the appeals and decide them afresh in accordance with the law. No order as to costs was made.
|
