9911796707
TMI Blog1969 (3) TMI 14X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e-tax makes no difference whatever to the conclusion arrived at on the legal position in Tax Case No. 13 of 1965. The reference relates to the assessment year 1955-56 for which the assessee, as a Hindu undivided family, of which the karta was one Gokuldas Thulsidas, was charged to tax. He died on April 19, 1957. He had filed the return for the year on April 2, 1957, and the assessment was completed on February 19, 1958, with Suresh Gokuldas succeeding as the karta. A sum of Rs. 64,000 was added to the income returned and the attempt of the assessee in appeals met with no success. Thereafter, in proceedings under section 28 culminating in an order dated March 30, 1961, a penalty of Rs. 50,000 was levied on the family. The Income-tax Office ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n and reassessment, section 25A provides for the incidence of tax, making it at the same time clear that the quantification is in exercise of the power to charge the income under section 23. In any contingency visualised by section 25A the integrity of the Hindu undivided family is either taken for granted or by a fiction preserved, but only after quantification of the tax the income of the Hindu undivided family has been charged to, the proportionate liability therefore is added to the individual assessment of each divided member, but the revenue being taken care of by section 25A that notwithstanding that, a joint and several liability of the divided members being insisted on. Section 25 also, on a similar reasoning, stands on a different ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... what the cour, decided was that notice for purposes of section 34 should go out to every divided member and not merely to the erstwhile karta. This proposition was repelled by the Supreme Court by pointing out that the position was as if the Income-tax Officer was proceeding to assess the income of the Hindu undivided family as in the relevant year during which the family existed and earned income. Apparently counsel in that case was reassured about the propriety of the assumption made there because of Commissioner of Income-tax v. K. M. N. N. Swaminathan Chettiar. We are of the viewt therefore that Lakshminarain Bhadani v. Commissioner of Income-tax does not really touch the point under consideration. It should be obvious by now that th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
