9911796707
TMI Blog1971 (12) TMI 13X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - 17-12-1971 - Judge(s) : V. RAMASWAMY., RAMANUJAM. JUDGMENT The judgment of the court was delivered by RAMASWAMI J.- Aruppukottai Chandra Bus Lines and Aruppukottai Chandra Transport is an unregistered partnership firm. On October 1, 1952, a return was submitted by the Aruppukottai Chandra Bus Lines and Aruppukottai Chandra Transport in respect of the accounting period ending on August 16, 1949, relevant for the assessment year 1950-51 showing an income of Rs. 51,528. The status claimed therein was that of an " association of persons ". In Part VI of the return in Form A the following names had been put in : (1) M. M. Palanichami Nadar, (2) N. Seeniammal (wife of No. 1), (3) P. Mathurai Veeraswami Nadar, (4) S. Ponnammal (wife of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dra Bus Lines and Aruppukottai Chandra Transport is a separate assessable entity and belonged to the partnership consisting of the said five partners and set aside the assessment order and directed the Income-tax Officer to make a fresh assessment conforming to his findings. Thereafter, the Income- tax Officer issued notices under section 34 of the Act in the name of Aruppukottai Chandra Bus Lines and Aruppukottai Chandra Transport to M. M. Palanichami Nadar, Madurai Veeraswami Nadar and P. Palanichami Nadar. In response to the notices three returns were filed under protest. These returns were one by M. M. Palanichami Nadar, the other by Mathurai Veeraswami Nadar and the third by P. Palanichami Nadar. These returns did not mention the statu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iew, it held that there had been a failure to file returns by the partnership firm and the case fell under section 34(1). The Tribunal also held that, in the facts and circumstances of this case and in the context, it should be taken that the note in the order sheet as " N. A. " standing for " not assessable " should be taken as terminating the proceedings in so far as the returns filed on October 1, 1952, were concerned and that since, in the Tribunal's opinion, there was a failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts and since the returns filed on October 1, 1952, had been disposed of, it was open to the Income-tax Officer to issue notices under section 34. On an application filed by the assessee un ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the previous year of every " individual, Hindu undivided family, company, and local authority, and of every firm and other association of persons or the partners of the firm or members of the association individually ". In the returns submitted on October 1, 1952. though the names of the persons who constituted the " association 'of persons " were mentioned, their shares had not been noted. The status claimed in the returns was that of an " association of persons ". It could not therefore be contended that the returns submitted on October 1, 1952, should be treated as returns submitted by an " unregistered firm ". In support of his contention that the returns submitted on October 1, 1952, remained undisposed of and that, therefore, se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2, 1957, the Income-tax Officer issued notices to the son and grandsons under section 34 for the assessment years 1950-51 to 1952-53 and completed the assessment for those years. The Supreme Court held that the order of the Income-tax Officer dated June 18, 1953, was not an order terminating the proceedings and that there was no disposal of the voluntary returns submitted by the respondent for the assessment years 1950-51, 1951-52 and 1952-53. It was, therefore, held that the assessment proceedings under section 34 of the Act were invalid. As could be seen from the facts of that case, the returns by the son and the grandsons were on the basis that there was a partition between the father and the son and grandsons and that, therefore, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s no separate income and that the file would be removed and clubbed with the family file, came to the conclusion that the reference to closing of file as " N.A " would not amount to disposal of the return. It may also be mentioned that the Supreme Court referred to " N.A." as " no assessment " whereas in our case all the authorities including the Tribunal and also in the statement of the case have stated that " N.A. " is an abbreviation for " not assessable ". We are, therefore, of opinion that there was an intention to terminate and there was a termination of the proceedings in so far as the returns filed on October 1, 1952, were concerned. If that were so, as already stated, the learned counsel for the assessee did not contend that sectio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
