9911796707
TMI Blog1951 (3) TMI 49X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 41-42 a decision was given by the Income tax Officer under Section 25A that this Hindu undivided family was disrupted on the first day of Kartik Sudi of Samvat year 1997, which corresponds to November 22, 1940. This decision was based upon a partition deed which was executed on that date. The contention of these four coparceners was that the disruption took place really on November 11, 1939, and not on November 22, 1940. That contention was rejected and, as I said before, the Income Tax Officer came to the conclusion that the disruption took place on the first day of Kartik Sudi Samvat year 1997. Now in the assessment for the year 1941-42 of this Hindu undivided family there was found a loss of ₹ 40,162 and therefore the family had no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e from the same business, profession or vocation for that year. Therefore, it is clear on a plain reading of this sub-section that the assessee who sustains a loss and the assessee to whom the set off is allowed must be the same, and the narrow question for our consideration is whether in this case it can be said that the registered firm which claims the set off and the Hindu undivided family that sustained the loss are the same assessees. 4. Now, the Income tax Act recognises as an assessee and as an independent unit, not only an individual, but a Hindu undivided family and a registered firm, and looking to the scheme of the Income Tax Act it is impossible to contend that a registered firm is the same entity as a Hindu undivided family. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e partners of that firm. Similarly, in the case of the Hindu undivided family, although after disruption the coparceners are entitled to pay the tax to the extent of the property coming to each one of them, here again the Act makes a clear distinction between the undivided family as an entity and the coparceners who are made liable on the order being passed by the Income Tax authorities. Therefore, neither of these two sections helps Mr. Kolah in the contention which he puts forward that the registered firm which is before us and which has been assessed to tax for the assessment year 1942-43 is the same entity and the same assessee as the Hindu undivided family which was assessed for the year 1941-42. The mere fact that the registered firm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
