1972 (6) TMI 4 - HC - Income Tax

Whether the assessment of the income of the house property and of the business of Palaniappa Match Works for the assessment years 1957-58 to 1960-61 in the hands of the assessee in the status of an individual is correct in law - held that where a coparcener having a wife and two minor daughters and no son receives his share of joint family properties on partition such property in the hands of the coparcener belongs to the Hindu undivided family of himself his wife and minor daughters and cannot be assessed as his individual property for the purpose of wealth-tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Reopening of original assessments under section 34(1)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1922.
2. Correctness of assessment of income from house property and business for assessment years 1957-58 to 1960-61 in the status of an individual.

Analysis:
The judgment addressed two main issues referred under section 66(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1922. Firstly, it discussed the correctness of reopening the original assessments for the assessment years 1957-58 to 1959-60 under section 34(1)(b) of the Act. The assessee, originally a member of a Hindu undivided family, underwent partitions resulting in the ownership of certain businesses and properties. The Income-tax Officer initiated proceedings under section 34 for reassessment, challenging the original assessments made in the status of a Hindu undivided family. The Income-tax Officer, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, and the Tribunal concluded that the income should have been assessed only in the status of an individual, not as a Hindu undivided family.

Secondly, the judgment delved into the correctness of the assessment of income from the house property and business for the assessment years 1957-58 to 1960-61 in the status of an individual. The court referred to the decision in N. V. Narendranath v. Commissioner of Wealth-tax, where it was held that property received by a coparcener on partition belongs to the Hindu undivided family and cannot be assessed as individual property. The court applied this legal principle to the present case, ruling in favor of the assessee and answering the second question negatively, supporting the assessee's position.

In conclusion, the court held that the original assessments for the assessment years 1957-58 to 1959-60 will stand, and the reassessment was set aside. The original assessment for the year 1960-1961 would be modified accordingly. The judgment did not award costs to any party.