1977 (7) TMI 71 - AT - Wealth-tax

Summary

Issues:
- Dispute over the status of the assessee as HUF or individual
- Validity of changing status without fresh notice
- Application of Customary Law in determining status

Analysis:
The judgment involves five Revenue appeals challenging the AAC's decision to accept the respondent's appeal and designate him as HUF instead of an individual as determined by the WTO. The respondent had filed wealth-tax returns as HUF for multiple assessment years, which were accepted by the WTO under section 16(3) without disputing the returns. However, the status was unilaterally changed to individual by the WTO based on the respondent's community and living conditions, without inviting a fresh return.

Before the AAC, the respondent argued that he was not given a chance to explain that he was not governed by Customary Law and that his assets were ancestral. The AAC, citing a Full Bench judgment of the Punjab & Harayana High Court, concluded that the respondent was indeed an HUF and should be assessed as such. The AAC also held that the status could not be altered without issuing a notice for assessment in a different status, relying on a Rajasthan High Court decision.

The Revenue contended that the issue should be kept open despite the Pritam Singh judgment, which indicated that Customary Law did not apply in Punjab & Haryana. However, the respondent's counsel argued that the respondent, residing in Bahadurgarh, was governed by Hindu Law, not Customary Law. Referring to a Lahore High Court judgment and a Tribunal order, it was established that Customary Law did not apply to the respondent, and he should be considered an HUF based on ancestral property ownership.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals, emphasizing that the respondent was governed by Hindu Law, not Customary Law, and confirming the AAC's decision that the respondent's status as HUF was valid. The judgment highlighted the importance of issuing fresh notices before changing an assessee's status and upheld the AAC's orders based on the respondent's ancestral property and HUF status.