2008 (5) TMI 274 - HC - Income Tax

Individual income or income of family - Original assessment of assessee in status of HUF had attained finality - absence of any material on record showing that there was any partition of property recorded in the past in terms of Section 171(3) - finding, reached by the learned Tribunal, to the effect that the appellant could not prove that it was a Hindu undivided family is perverse - therefore having been assessed as HUF, the assessee could not have been treated or assessed, in any status, other than a Hindu undivided family

Issues Involved:
1. Existence of a valid Hindu Undivided Family (HUF).
2. Assessment of income in the hands of individuals versus HUF.
3. Tribunal's reversal of the Assessing Officer's decision.
4. Compliance with Section 255(4) of the Income Tax Act.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Existence of a Valid Hindu Undivided Family (HUF):
The appellant claimed the existence of a HUF formed by two co-parceners, Biswa Kanta Barkataky and Krishna Kanta Barkataky, after the death of their father in 1947. The Tribunal, however, held that the appellant could not conclusively prove the formation and existence of the HUF. The Tribunal's decision was based on the absence of an agreement in 1947, lack of evidence of joint ownership of lands at that time, and no proof of common residence or kitchen. The High Court found this conclusion perverse, noting that the Tribunal itself acknowledged the agricultural lands were inherited and jointly owned by the brothers, and the investments in FDRs came from agricultural income and borrowings. The Court emphasized that once a family is assessed as a HUF, it continues to be so unless a partition is recorded under Section 171 of the Act.

2. Assessment of Income in the Hands of Individuals versus HUF:
The Assessing Officer initially assessed the income in the hands of Krishna Kanta Barkataky and Ajit Barkataky individually, arguing that the funds invested in FDRs emanated from their individual incomes. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) both held that the income should be assessed in the hands of the HUF, noting the lack of evidence that the funds came from individual incomes. The High Court supported this view, stating that the investments were made from agricultural income and loans taken by the HUF, not individual incomes.

3. Tribunal's Reversal of the Assessing Officer's Decision:
The Tribunal reversed the Assessing Officer's decision to treat the appellant as an Association of Persons (AOP) and instead assessed the income in the hands of the individuals. The High Court found this reversal unjustified, reiterating that the appellant was assessed as a HUF in earlier years and no partition was recorded under Section 171. The Court cited precedents to assert that a family hitherto assessed as undivided shall be deemed to continue as a HUF unless a partition is recorded.

4. Compliance with Section 255(4) of the Income Tax Act:
The Tribunal's order dated June 10, 2003, was purportedly pronouncing the majority opinion of the three separate orders. The High Court did not find any specific non-compliance with Section 255(4) of the Act in the Tribunal's order.

Conclusion:
The High Court concluded that the Tribunal's finding that the appellant could not prove the existence of a HUF was perverse and not supported by the evidence. The appellant was directed to be treated as a HUF for the purpose of the assessments. The appeals were allowed, and the impugned orders were set aside. The Court emphasized the importance of consistent treatment of the appellant as a HUF in the absence of any recorded partition.

← Previous Next →