9911796707
TMI Blog1979 (1) TMI 162X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r s. 171(3) recognising a partition of the movables w.e.f. 31st March, 1973 and all immovables w.e.f. 31st March, 1973. ITA Nos. 503 and 504/Mds/78-79 are again appeals by the Revenue but against the decision of the AAC cancelling the assessments made on an unregistered firm M/s. C. Chenni Chettiar and Sons, as a protective measure, which is stated to have come into being consequent to a partial partition of the HUF of Shri Chenni Chettiar on 31st March, 1971. 2. We first take up ITA No. 2127/Mds/77-78. The facts in brief are that there was an HUF consisting of coparceners Shri Chenni Chettiar, Shri Chennakesavan, Shri Vajravelu and Shri C. Natarajan. According to the said HUF there was a partial partition of the movables on 31st March, 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a notice dt. 6th March, 1975. The date of this notice was subsequent to the date on which complete partition was recognised i.e. 31st March, 1973. Thereafter, an assessment was also made. The assessee contested the assessment before the AAC and the submission was that since the HUF had ceased to exist on 31st March, 1973, the ITO had no jurisdiction to initiate action under s. 148 on 6th March, 1975 since the assessee HUF as on the date of initiation of proceedings under s. 148 was not an HUF hitherto assessed as undivided. The AAC upheld the contention of the assessee and cancelled the assessment. Hence the appeal by the Revenue. 3. The decision of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Rameswar Sirkar vs. ITO(1) is authority for the pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rial to suggest that the movables were not separately enjoyed at least on 31st March, 1973 as stated in the deed of partition. Various questionnaires issued by the ITO and the statements of the coparceners recorded do not contain any material to suggest that as on 31st March, 1973 there was no complete partition of the HUF. As a matter of fact, the coparceners in the course of examination had stated that the movables were partitioned in 1971 but due to practical difficulties they were being jointly looked after by the father till 1973. We have, therefore, to hold on the material on record that there was a complete partition of the HUF by 31st March, 1973. This being the position and no assessment having been made prior to 31st March, 1973 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
