9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (12) TMI 25X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed the same in the bank as under: Rs. 24-3-1962 1,47,307.56 30-3-1962 2,89,240.00 ------------- 4,36,547.56 ------------- After deducting a sum of Rs. 6,000, the balance was equally divided between the two coparceners of the family. Accordingly, a sum of Rs. 2,15,273 was transferred to P. S. Sridharan as his share from the bank account of the family to Sridharan's bank account. Subsequently, an additional compensation was received in the year 1966 and a sum of Rs. 2,24,017.64 was deposited in the bank account of P. R. Sriramulu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... efore, was of the opinion that the assessments made for all the said assessment years, viz., 1965-66 to 1969-70, should be reopened and the reasons recorded by him for re opening the assessment reads as under: "The assessee have shown only half the compensation amount received in his books of account. The other half having been wrongly credited to P.S. Sridharan's account who is a coparcener in the existing Hindu undivided family, and, therefore, the amount of income accruing from the investment of half the compensation amount is half the income accrued from Rs. 2,18,739 should be assessed only in the hands of the Hindu undivided family. Since the assessee has wilfully neglected to furnish complete and accurate particulars of total income ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the assessment by the Income-tax Officer was not valid as there was no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly the relevant material facts at the time of the original assessment. Though he upheld the submissions urged by the assessee that the reopening of the assessment was not proper, he proceeded to decide the question on the merits of the case also and held that the view of the Income-tax Officer under section 171 of the Act an order should be passed for recognising the partial partition was not correct in law and, therefore, the Income-tax Officer was not justified in making the reassessment including the interest income arising on the entire compensation in the hands of the joint family. Aggrieved by the o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... led ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the interest accruing on the half share of the compensation allotted to the coparcener by division in equal shares cannot be included in the assessment of the assessee-Hindu undivided family ?" Mr. C. V. Rajan, learned counsel for the applicant, stated that the Tribunal was not correct in holding that the assessee had disclosed all primary facts, at the time of the original assessment proceedings and according to learned counsel for the Revenue, the assessee at the time of the original assessment had disclosed only the interest income that accrued on half of the compensation amount received and deposited in the name of the as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... edings the Department was made aware of the division of the properties and the income accrued after the properties were allotted in favour of the divided coparceners and, therefore, he submitted that the Tribunal has come to a correct conclusion in holding that there was a disclosure of primary facts at the time of the original assessment by the assessee. We have carefully considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. Both the Appellate Assistant Commissioner as well as the Appellate Tribunal have recorded a finding that all the primary facts relating to the receipt of the compensation and the equal division of the receipt between the assessee and the other coparcener, P. S. Sridharan, were on the records of the Depa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... icer had no jurisdiction to initiate the assessment proceedings for the assessment years 1965-66 to 1969-70 under the provisions of section 147(a) of the Income-tax Act. Therefore, we are of the view that the first question of law referred to us is liable to be answered in the affirmative and, against the Revenue. Since we are holding that the reassessment proceedings were not properly initiated it is not necessary to decide the question whether in the absence of an order under section 171 of the Income-tax Act recognising partial partition the entire interest income can be assessed in the hands of the assessee of the Hindu undivided family. No doubt, the Supreme Court in Kalloomal Tapeswari Prasad (HUF) v. CIT [1982] 133 ITR 690 has held ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
