9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (7) TMI 280X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... effect from 25-2-1991. Hence the file may be removed from the rolls of Income-tax. Full partition effect in the family on 25-2-1991 with regard to immovable property through Court order issued by the Additional Subordinate Judge, Tirupati I.A. No. 267 of 1991. O.S. No. 201 of 1989, and with regard immovable property, Le. book capital through book adjustment entries among the members of the family. A questionnaire in Form No. 171 is filed separately. The claim of family partition among the members of the family and pass necessary order under section 171 accepting the partition claim.' It was claimed that at the time of partition, the assessee-HUF made the following provisions - (a) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o filed before me. It may be seen at page 21 of the appellant's paper-book. It was claimed that the specified investments for which provisions have been made, were made after 25-2-1991, but before the close of the accounting year, viz. 31-3-1992. As the investments in question have been made within the financial year relevant to the assessment year 1991-92, though admittedly, after the alleged partition of the HUF on 25-2-1991, it was claimed that the assessee was entitled to the reliefs under sections 80CCA, 80CCB and rebate under section 88 of the Act. The Assessing Officer rejected the claim of the assessee-HUF that the family had been partitioned on 25-2-1991, and accordingly, he completed the assessment under section 143(3). On appeal, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e, in the interest of equity and justice, I hold that since the payments have been made on approved investments/securities during this year, the smaller HUFs/individuals of the erstwhile coparceners will be eligible to claim the deduction in respect of the payments which are relatable to each of the smaller HUFs/individuals during this year.' 4. Before me, the learned counsel for the assessee invited attention to section 3 of the Income-tax Act, which defined the previous year as the financial year immediately preceding the assessment year. He also invited my attention to the provisions of section 80CCA, section 80CCB and section 88 in terms of which the requirement is that the relevant investments should be made in the previous year. For ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... within the statute, it is their duty to let the defendant go free.' (Kin v. V. Atkinson, 3 CLR 632, 639 (per Griffith, CJ.), see also CIT Madhya Pradesh, Nagpur v. Kisan Co-operative Rice Mills Ltd, 1975 MPLJ 717: 1975 Jab. LJ 873 (DB) - Bindra's Interpretation of Statutes) .............." 5. The learned Departmental Representative on the other hand, relied on the orders of the Revenue authorities. 6. I am of the view that the orders of the Revenue authorities deserve to be upheld. Admittedly, the contributions to Jeevan Akshaya and Mutual Funds and NSCs were not made before 25-2-1991, when the entire HUF was totally partitioned. That was the claim of the assessee in the statement accompanying the return, and the relevant portion of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the partition of the HUF on 25-2-1991 as claimed by the assessee and accepted by the Department, has to be ignored. As mentioned by the Assessing Officer, what can be computed is only the income or expenditure up to the date of partition of the HUF, viz. 25-1-1991, though the previous year extends up to 31-3-1991. 7. The Commissioner (Appeals) was fair and reasonable in directing that the investments made after the date of partition should be considered in the hands of the respective coparceners. After these directions, I see no reason for any legitimate grievance on the part of the assessee. There is no dispute on the principles for interpretation of statutory provisions, laid down by the Courts, in the case law relied upon by the learn ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
