9911796707
TMI Blog1981 (2) TMI 14X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ave impugned the validity of the assessment order dated January 23, 1976, passed by the respondent-Agrl. ITO, Tumkur Circle, Tumkur. The facts which are not in dispute may be stated as follows: Petitioners are all residents of Handanakere village in Chikkanayakanahalli Taluk. Their father died in the year 1965. Petitioners were members of an HUF but on November 6, 1964, there was a partition by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y representation nor responded to the notice as directed. In that circumstance, the impugned order came to be passed. However, it is apparent from the impugned order itself, as well as the assertion made by the petitioners that a Commercial Tax Inspector deputed by the respondent did visit the village on August 24, 1974, in order to prepare a report as to whether there was a partition of the prop ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r made is one without jurisdiction inasmuch as none of the petitioners had assessable income under the Act and further that the respondent erred in holding that the petitioners remained undivided even after receiving the report from the Commercial Tax Inspector who was deputed for that purpose. Prima facie it appears that the respondent erred in assuming jurisdiction to assess the petitioners as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cosharers, it is sufficient expression by one of the members, if not all of them, indicating his intention of severance of status as member of the joint Hindu family. It is no doubt true that the respondent was handicapped by the inactivity of the 1st petitioner in not making either a representation or filing an annual return for himself and his brothers when in 1973 itself notice under s. 18(2) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
