1965 (12) TMI 24 - SC - Income Tax

Order of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad quashing the notice issued by the appellant under section 34 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 to the respondent as the karta of a Hindu undivided family for the assessment year 1955-56 questioned Held that - The High Court went wrong in holding that the Income-tax Officer had no jurisdiction to initiate proceedings under section 34 of the Act against the respondent as the karta of a Hindu undivided family. Appeal allowed.

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the notice under Section 34 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922.
2. Principle against double taxation.
3. Jurisdiction of the Income-tax Officer to reassess the Hindu undivided family after assessing individual members.
4. Impact of Section 25A of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Notice under Section 34 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922:
The appeal arises from the High Court's order quashing the notice issued under Section 34 of the Act to the respondent as the karta of a Hindu undivided family for the assessment year 1955-56. The Income-tax Officer issued the notice on the grounds that the respondent's income had escaped assessment and was under-assessed. The High Court quashed the notice, emphasizing that the income had already been assessed in the hands of individual family members and could not be reassessed as the Hindu undivided family's income.

2. Principle Against Double Taxation:
The High Court held that the notice was invalid as it offended the principle against double taxation. Since the same income was already assessed in the hands of individual family members, reassessing it in the hands of the Hindu undivided family would result in double taxation, which is not permissible under the Act. The High Court did not delve into the second ground regarding Section 25A due to the resolution of the first issue.

3. Jurisdiction of the Income-tax Officer to Reassess the Hindu Undivided Family After Assessing Individual Members:
The Supreme Court examined whether the Income-tax Officer had the jurisdiction to reassess the Hindu undivided family after having assessed its individual members. The Court noted that under the Act, a Hindu undivided family and its individual members are distinct assessable entities. If the family had escaped assessment, the Income-tax Officer could issue a notice under Section 34, provided the conditions laid down in the section were met. The Court emphasized that the Income-tax Officer's lack of knowledge about the existence of the joint family at the time of assessing individual members was crucial. It was not a case of electing between two alternatives but rather addressing an escaped assessment.

4. Impact of Section 25A of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922:
The High Court did not address the issue concerning Section 25A, which deals with the recognition of partition within a Hindu undivided family. The Supreme Court remanded the case to the High Court for consideration of this aspect. The Court highlighted that if the Hindu undivided family continued to exist despite the compromise decree, and this fact was concealed from the Income-tax Officer, it would be a clear case of escaped assessment, justifying the notice under Section 34.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in quashing the notice under Section 34. The Income-tax Officer had the jurisdiction to initiate proceedings against the Hindu undivided family if the conditions of Section 34 were satisfied. The Court emphasized that appropriate adjustments must be made to avoid double taxation if the assessment of the Hindu undivided family proceeds. The case was remanded to the High Court to address the issue concerning Section 25A. The appeal was allowed, and the High Court's order was set aside.

← Previous Next →