9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (10) TMI 424X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appeal was admitted by this Court to consider the following substantial questions of law: "(a) Whether the assessing officer erred in law in assessing an amount of Rs. 8,00,000/- and Rs. 71,169/- belonging to Shri H.N. Subbarama Gupta and his deceased wife Smt. Vathsala in their personal capacities, in the hands of the HUF on the basis of mere surmises and conjectures and consequently passed a perverse order under the facts and circumstances of the case? (b) Whether the authorities below failed to appreciate that consent cannot confer jurisdiction and the amount of Rs. 80,00,000/- does not belong to the Appellant and hence the assessment is bad in law and consequently passed a perverse order? (c) Whether the authorities below a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he learned counsel appearing for the assessee would submit that the authorities have failed to appreciate that the addition of Rs. 71,169/- being the closing balance of the joint account of individuals who are members of HUF, the same ought not to have been taxed in the hands of the HUF. In other words, he contended that when the bank account does not pertain to the HUF and it is only a joint account of two individuals, the same ought not to have been considered as unexplained cash deposit in the hands of the HUF. At the most, the same ought to have been assessed in the hands of the said two individuals who are the account holders. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the Revenue, on the contrary, justifying the impugned orders, submitted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the appellant that the Assessing Officer ought not to have assessed to tax the amount of Rs. 71,169/- in the hands of the HUF found in the joint names of Subba Rama Gupta and his wife is totally misconceived for the reason that the fact finding authorities have given a categorical finding that the members of HUF had no independent source of income and moreover, the said factual aspect was admitted by the assessee before the Assessing Officer, as recorded by the CIT (Appeals) and the Tribunal. In such circumstances, the assessee declaring his income by filing a revised income and offering to tax the amount utilized for the purpose of construction cannot be permitted to contend that the amount in the joint names of two members of the HUF ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
