9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Entitlement to maintain an application under Article 226 of the Constitution. 2. Validity and jurisdiction of the reassessment on the Hindu Undivided Family (HUF). Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Entitlement to Maintain an Application under Article 226 of the Constitution: The court had to decide whether the petitioner was entitled to maintain this application under Article 226 of the Constitution. It was undisputed that a large sum of money had escaped assessment. The appellant did not disclose this sum of money to the revenue department either as an individual or as a HUF. Initially, Mahabir Prasad Poddar did not state that there was any HUF or that the HUF had any interest in the money. He later filed a revised return claiming the income belonged to the HUF. The court noted that the petitioner invited the Income-tax Officer to make the assessment on the HUF. The assessment was completed based on the revised return filed by Mahabir Prasad Poddar. The court emphasized that the appellant had an alternative remedy within the Income-tax Act and had resorted to it. The appellant did not provide any explanation for the delay in moving the application under Article 226 of the Constitution. The court held that Article 226 can only be exercised where there is a miscarriage of justice or abuse of power. The appellant, having invited the assessment, was not entitled to relief under Article 226. 2. Validity and Jurisdiction of the Reassessment on the HUF: The court examined whether the reassessment on the HUF was without jurisdiction. The appellant contended that a reassessment could only be made after serving a proper and valid notice under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The court acknowledged that service of a valid notice is a condition precedent for the assumption of jurisdiction by the Income-tax Officer. However, the court noted that this was the first assessment and Mahabir Prasad Poddar initially indicated that the income was his individual income and later claimed it belonged to the HUF. The notice under Section 148 was served on Mahabir Prasad Poddar without indicating the capacity. The court found that the status of the assessee could be determined in the assessment proceeding. The court referred to the decision in Chooharmal Wadhuram v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Gujarat II, where it was held that the wrong description of the status of an assessee does not invalidate the proceedings if the sanction was granted for initiating proceedings against the assessee. The court concluded that the assessment on the HUF was not without jurisdiction. Conclusion: The court dismissed the application under Article 226 of the Constitution, holding that the appellant was not entitled to relief due to the conduct and circumstances of the case. The reassessment on the HUF was found to be valid and within jurisdiction. The appeal was dismissed with costs.
|
