9911796707
TMI Blog1969 (10) TMI 1X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essment proceedings for 1949-50, the family claimed on February 7, 1951, that the several businesses of the family had been partitioned between Karuppan Chettiar on the one hand and Muthukaruppan Chettiar and his sons forming a separate family on the other. Following up this claim the returns in response to the notice under section 22(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1922 (hereinafter called the Act), issued to the family for the assessment years 1950-51, 1951-52 and 1952-53 were made by Karuppan Chettiar in his individual capacity showing the income from the several sources that fell to his share. The Income-tax Officer rejected the claim of partition and assessed the Hindu undivided family for the aforesaid three years treating Karuppan Chettiar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... K. M. K. Karuppan Chettiar, assessed in F. 1005-A. I have held in the family file in my order for income-tax year 1949-50 that there has been no division between father and son. This being the case, there is no source of income to be separately assessed in the assessee's hands. The return of income in this file relates to the alleged share of income consequent on partition. Since partition has not been accepted, this file has only to be clubbed with the father's file. If, for any reason, it is ultimately held on appeal that a separate assessment should be made, it will no doubt be possible to take action under the provisions of section 34 as now amended. Since there is no separate income, the pending proceedings will be closed as N. A. and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ervations made by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner in his order declining to assess the income of the Hindu undivided family operated to lift the bar of limitation as regards the assessment of income of the separated members by the application of the principle of the judgments of this court in Income-tax Officer v. Murlidhar Bhagwandas and N. Kt. Sivalingam Chettiar v. Commissioner of Income-tax. In our opinion, the orders passed by the income-tax authorities and confirmed by the Tribunal suffer from a fundamental defect. As we have already stated, Karuppan Chettiar submitted returns of his income in his individual capacity for the years 1950-51, 1951-52 and 1952-53 in response to the notice issued under section 22(2) of the Act. By his ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... section 22(2) and (3) have not been properly and legally proceeded with. In the case before us the order of the Income-tax Officer dated June 18, 1953, should be interpreted in the light of circumstances in which that order was passed. So interpreted it appears to us that the Income-tax Officer did not intend to conclude the proceedings before him. It follows, therefore, that there is no disposal of the voluntary returns made by the respondent for the assessment years 1950-51, 1951-52 and 1952-53. It is manifest that the assessment proceedings under section 34(1) of the Act for the aforesaid three years are invalid. In the Estate of the late A. M. K. M. Karuppan Chettiar v. Commissioner of Income-tax it was held by this court that notice ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
