9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Validity of the partition claim in income tax assessment. 2. Compliance with notice requirements under section 171 of the Income-tax Act. 3. Right of appeal for family members in case of partition claims. 4. Jurisdiction of the court in interference with internal statutory remedies. Detailed Analysis: 1. The judgment pertains to an income tax assessment proceeding for the assessment year 1970-71 involving a Hindu undivided family (HUF) consisting of two brothers and their sons. The issue revolves around the validity of a partition claim made by one of the brothers, Rameshwarlal, on the basis of a Chitha dated July 1, 1959, which allegedly divided the family properties. The Income-tax Officer allowed the partition claim with effect from July 1, 1959, which was challenged in the writ application by the sons of the other brother, Bansidhar. 2. The challenge raised by the petitioners was centered on the alleged lack of notice provided to them by the Income-tax Officer before passing the partition order. The petitioners contended that the order was passed without notice, violating the provisions of section 171(2) of the Income-tax Act, which mandates giving notice of the enquiry to all family members. The respondents, on the other hand, argued that the petitioners had full knowledge of the proceedings, and their father, Bansidhar, was actively involved in representing their interests during the enquiry. 3. The judgment delves into the right of appeal for family members in cases of partition claims under section 246 of the Income-tax Act. The court considered whether the petitioners, not being assessees themselves, had the right to appeal against the partition order. It was discussed that if family members are aggrieved by the order resulting from an enquiry into a partition claim, they may be considered persons aggrieved and have the right to appeal under the Act. However, a conclusive decision on this issue was not provided in the judgment. 4. The court, after a detailed analysis of the facts and legal provisions, decided not to interfere in the writ jurisdiction since the petitioners had already availed themselves of the internal statutory remedy by filing an appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The court highlighted that the appellate authority could comprehensively investigate the matter, and the petitioners had participated in the appeal proceedings. The judgment emphasized that the order of assessment for each year is independent, but in the case of a partition order under section 171, it has a unique impact on subsequent years. In conclusion, the court dismissed the writ application but directed the Appellate Assistant Commissioner to hear the pending appeal, giving the petitioners a full opportunity to present their case. The judgment also granted the petitioners the liberty to approach the court again if the appeal by their father was deemed not maintainable.
|
