9911796707
TMI Blog1988 (6) TMI 1X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ner has sought for quashing the notice dated June 25, 1981, issued by the Agricultural Income-tax Officer (respondent) treating the petitioner as the legal representative of the Hindu undivided family and directing him to file a return of income of the Hindu undivided family for the assessment year 1980-81. Brief facts which are necessary to appreciate the question raised in this petition are as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... while Hindu undivided family was not in existence, he cannot be considered as a legal representative of the Hindu undivided family and liable to file the returns for the Hindu undivided family. However, the respondent issued a notice to the petitioner directing him, as one of the representatives of the deceased, to file a return. In reply to the said notice, it was pointed out that no provision ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nnot be extended to a situation as in the instant case. We are fortified in our view by the decision of the Madras High Court in Seethammal v. CIT [1981] 130 ITR 597. In the said case, the court was considering the applicability of section 171 of the Income-tax Act in similar situation. It is observed that "family" signifies a group and plurality of persons is an essential attribute of a family. A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
