1968 (8) TMI 12

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ne hand and Muthukaruppan and his sons forming a separate Hindu undivided family on the other. For the assessment years 1950-51, 1951-52 and 1952-53 Karuppan Chettiar, pursuant to the notices under section 22(2) issued to the Hindu undivided family, submitted returns in his individual capacity in respect of the income from several sources that fell to his share at the partition. The Income-tax Officer rejected the claim of Karuppan Chettiar that there had been a partition of the Hindu undivided family and proceeded to assess the Hindu undivided family for the three years in question treating returns filed by Karuppan Chettiar as returns filed by the family. In appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner the orders passed by the Income-ta .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... three years in question under protest. The Income-tax Officer ignored the protest and assessed the income of Karuppan Chettiar by his order dated March 31, 1957. The appeals filed by Karuppan Chettiar to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal were unsuccessful. The Tribunal held that, since the Appellate Assistant Commissioner had made a direction under his original order to assess the divided members separately, the Income-tax Officer was invested with jurisdiction under the second proviso to sub-section (3) of section 34 of the Income-tax Act to make the impugned assessments without any limit as to time and that, independently of section 34, the assessments could also be supported under section 25A( .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... n behalf of the Hindu undivided family and to assess the Hindu undivided family in respect of that income. That order was set aside. The returns submitted by Karuppan Chettiar in his individual capacity were, therefore, never considered and no assessment was made of Karuppan Chettiar as an individual on those returns. Karuppan Chettiar submitted fresh returns in February, 1955, and June, 1956, before the notice under section 34 was issued on March 2, 1957. The notice under section 34 could not be issued against Karuppan Chettiar in his individual capacity unless the returns which had already been filed by him were disposed of. It was held by this court in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Ranchhoddas Karsondas that the return in answer to the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X