9911796707
TMI Blog1975 (12) TMI 87X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 60-61, the assessee claimed the status of HUF consisting of himself, his father and his brothers in respect of the business carried on by him and this claim was accepted. Subsequently, the assessments were reopened and it was held that the business in question belonged to Sardar Santokh Singh in his individual capacity. Thus, the status of Sardar Santokh Singh upto and including the asst. yr. 1960-61 was taken as 'individual' by the Department. For the asst. yr. 1961-62 the assessee claimed his status to be "HUF' and the same was accepted and remained unchanged. In the present appeals, we are concerned with the status of the assessee for the subsequent six years, namely, asst. yrs. 1962-63 to 1967-68, both inclusive. 3. Originally, the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... We find that the Hon'ble Orissa High Court in their judgment dt. 2nd Sept., 1975, referred the above, have analysed the legal position and come to the conclusion that the assessee, Sardar Santokh Singh, is legally capable of putting his own separate property into the common family stock by his unilateral declaration. They have directed the Tribunal to find out, as a matter of fact as to whether there is material to come to the conclusion that the assessee has done so. We have gone through the Returns filed by the assessee for the asst. yr. 1962-63 to 1967-68 and find that in all these Returns, the assessee declared the status as 'HUF' and described himself as the karta. The verified declarations in all the Returns descried the assessee as t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... K) of 1971-72 has been filed by the assessee claiming partial partition of the business styled, Autoways (India) which formerly belonged to the HUF with effect from 1st April, 1964 relevant for the asst. yr. 1965-66. The ITO by his order dt. 25th March, 1970 rejected the claim on the sole ground that the status of the assessee was taken by him as an 'individual' so that no question of partition could arise. On appeal, the AAC confirmed the same. Now, that we have held the correct status of the assessee to be that of HUF, the objection of the Revenue authorities is no longer sustainable. We accordingly direct that the claim of partial partition with effect from the asst. yr. 1965-66 be recognised under s. 171 of the IT Act, 1961. 6. ITA N ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
