1982 (4) TMI 93 - AT - Income Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether assessment on a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) is valid when there is a partition on the last date of the previous year.

The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal ITAT Bangalore dealt with the issue of whether an assessment could be made on the HUF when a partition of the joint family occurred on the last date of the previous year. The case involved the assessee-HUF filing a nil return of wealth after a partition on 31-3-1978. The Wealth-tax Officer (WTO) completed the assessment on the HUF as if no partition had taken place, citing section 20(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957. The assessee appealed the assessment, arguing that since the partition occurred on the last date of the previous year, the assessment should not be on the HUF. The Tribunal considered the provisions of section 20(1) which state that if a partition occurs on the last day of the previous year, the assessment shall be made on the HUF for that assessment year, despite the partition. The Tribunal referred to a decision by the Gujarat High Court which supported this interpretation of the law. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, holding that the assessment on the HUF was valid under section 20(1) due to the partition occurring on the last day of the previous year.

In analyzing the issue, the Tribunal referred to section 20(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, which governs assessments in cases of partition in a Hindu undivided family. The section states that if a partition takes place on the last day of the previous year, the assessment shall be made on the HUF for that assessment year, regardless of the partition. The Tribunal noted that the WTO had accepted the partition and issued an order under section 20(1) confirming the genuineness of the partition. The Tribunal also cited a decision by the Gujarat High Court which emphasized that if a partition occurs on the last day of the previous year, the undivided family must be assessed as such for that assessment year. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that the assessment on the HUF was in accordance with the law as specified in section 20(1.

The Tribunal addressed the argument raised by the assessee's counsel that the Kerala High Court decision in Parameswaran Nambudiripad v. IAC was relevant to the case. However, the Tribunal distinguished this case, stating that it pertained to the Agricultural Income-tax and involved provisions different from section 20(1) of the Wealth-tax Act. The Tribunal emphasized that the decision in Parameswaran Nambudiripad was not applicable to the current case, which revolved around the assessment of a HUF following a partition on the last day of the previous year. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, upholding the assessment made on the HUF in accordance with section 20(1) of the Wealth-tax Act.