9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2008 (4) TMI 215 - HC - Income TaxSince the very beginning the assessee is running the business in the name of proprietorship firm in the individual status It is only when the notices were issued u/s 148 for re-opening of the assessments made in the individual status, then the assessee filed the return of the HUF with an object to regularize the undisclosed investments - assessee failed to establish that the business carried on by him was in the name of HUF - legal status as HUF not acceptable
Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the status of HUF (Hindu Undivided Family) claimed by the assessee. 2. Validity of the assessments made by the Assessing Officer in the individual capacity of the assessee. 3. Substantial question of law regarding the creation and existence of HUF. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Legality of the Status of HUF Claimed by the Assessee: The primary issue was whether the assessee had successfully established the existence of an HUF. The assessee claimed that after receiving a gift of Rs. 20,000 from his mother in 1991, he started a business in the status of HUF. However, the court found that the assessee failed to prove the creation and existence of the HUF. The assessee continued to file returns in the individual status, and all investments, bank accounts, and business licenses were in his individual name. The ITAT observed that the HUF returns were filed belatedly only after receiving notices under Section 148, indicating an attempt to regularize undisclosed investments. The court concluded that the business was carried on by the assessee in his individual capacity, and the income derived was not in the status of HUF. 2. Validity of the Assessments Made by the Assessing Officer in the Individual Capacity of the Assessee: The Assessing Officer initially issued notices under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act for reassessment, suspecting that the investments made by the assessee were not reflected in the original returns. The assessee filed returns in the status of HUF, which were dismissed as non-est. The Assessing Officer concluded that no HUF existed and assessed the income in the hands of the individual on a substantive basis. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) upheld this finding and deleted the protective assessment in the hands of the HUF. The ITAT confirmed that the protective individual assessments had attained finality and the status of HUF was not proved. The court found no illegality or perversity in the impugned order passed by the ITAT, affirming that the business was carried out by the assessee in his individual capacity. 3. Substantial Question of Law Regarding the Creation and Existence of HUF: The appellant raised a substantial question of law, arguing that the ITAT was unjustified in not accepting the legal status of HUF created through a valid gift deed/affidavit. The court, however, found that the assessee failed to prove the creation and existence of HUF. The court referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Satyendra Kumar, where a gift made by a grandmother for the benefit of the entire family was treated as HUF income. However, in the present case, the court noted that the assessee did not provide sufficient evidence to establish that the business and investments were made in the status of HUF. The court concluded that the findings of fact recorded by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and affirmed by the ITAT did not require any interference. Conclusion: The court dismissed the appeals, finding no merits in the arguments presented by the appellant. The court upheld the findings that the assessee failed to prove the existence of HUF and that the business was carried on in the individual capacity of the assessee. The assessments made by the Assessing Officer in the individual capacity were deemed valid, and the protective assessments in the hands of HUF were rightly deleted.
|
