1986 (6) TMI 52 - AT - Income Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Partial partition of HUF and its tax implications.
2. Assessment of income in the hands of HUF versus individual.
3. Reopening of assessments and clubbing of income under section 64 of the Income-tax Act.
4. Status determination of the assessee as an AOP or individual.
5. Jurisdiction of the ITO regarding assessment status.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Partial partition of HUF and its tax implications:
The assessee, representing his HUF, had a one-third share in a partnership firm. A partial partition was effected on 14-8-1967, dividing Rs. 50,000 among the four HUF members. The Tribunal held that the HUF ceased to be a partner from 15-8-1967, and the High Court affirmed this partition effective from 15-8-1967.

2. Assessment of income in the hands of HUF versus individual:
For the assessment years 1969-70 and 1970-71, the revenue taxed the share income of the assessee in the hands of his HUF. The Tribunal accepted the partial partition and held that the department could not find otherwise unless disturbed by higher authorities. The assessments based on this order became final.

3. Reopening of assessments and clubbing of income under section 64 of the Income-tax Act:
The department reopened assessments for 1969-70 to 1973-74, including the share income of the wife and minor sons in the hands of the individual assessee under section 64. The Tribunal concluded there was no sub-partnership but co-ownership, upholding the ITO's action in clubbing the income of the wife but not the minors.

4. Status determination of the assessee as an AOP or individual:
The department reopened assessments for 1970-71 and 1971-72, claiming the assessee and his family constituted an AOP. The Commissioner (Appeals) annulled these assessments. The Tribunal referred to the Supreme Court case of G. Murugesan & Bros. and other precedents, concluding that mere joint ownership and receipt of income do not form an AOP. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision, stating no common purpose or action was evident to form an AOP.

5. Jurisdiction of the ITO regarding assessment status:
The Tribunal noted the ITO's lack of jurisdiction to assess the status as 'body of individuals' when notices were issued for an AOP. The Tribunal cited Supreme Court and High Court decisions, affirming that the assessments were invalid in the status of 'body of individuals.'

Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed both departmental appeals, upholding the Commissioner (Appeals)'s annulment of the assessments. The cross-objections were also dismissed as infructuous.