9911796707
TMI Blog1986 (7) TMI 81X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is right in law in holding that the assessments made under section 144 in the status of an 'individual' for non-compliance with notice under section 148, were not valid in law, and, therefore, by dismissing the Department's appeal and allowing the assessee's cross-objections ? " The assessee had been assessed in the status of an " individual " up to the assessment year 1970-71. For the first time in 1971-72, the assessee claimed the status of a " Hindu undivided family ". The Income-tax Officer negatived the claim on the ground that the assessee had obtained property and business from his grandfather by virtue of his will and so the status contin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ese returns are not in compliance with section 139. The point of difference between the Income-tax Officer and the assessee is that while the assessee declares his status as Hindu undivided family, the Income-tax Officer determines it as individual. The Act gives him powers to determine the correct status. Therefore, we have to agree with the assessee that a valid return has been filed and reassessment was illegal. The decision of the Bombay High Court in [1958] 34 ITR 449 (Lalbbai Ghatabhai) would apply to the present case. The position might have been different if there had been two assessments on the same person in two different status. In this connection, we have to refer to the decision relied on by the learned Departmental representat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ioner. " The first question referred to us relates to the validity of the notice issued under section 148 by the Income-tax Officer calling upon the assessee to submit a return in the status of an " individual " when the assessee had filed the return in the status of a " Hindu undivided family ". It is not in dispute that the assessee was all along being assessed in the status of an individual. That was his recognised status. If he was aggrieved by that status recognised, he could have preferred an appeal against the previous assessments. But he did not do it. He silently accepted that position. When there was no return filed by the assessee in the status of an individual, the Income-tax Officer was justified in issuing a notice under sec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... undivided family ". A second return was filed by the assessee pursuant to the second notice and the Income-tax Officer made an assessment on the basis of the second return. The question arose whether the assessment made pursuant to the second return filed in response to the second notice ignoring the first return filed pursuant to the first notice, was valid. The Supreme Court observed (at pages 610 and 611): " The Income-tax Officer could not have validly acted on the return filed by the assessee in the status of 'Hindu undivided family' and any assessment made by the Income-tax Officer on such return would have been invalid in law because the notice under section 34 had been issued in the status of 'individual ................ Under t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
