9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (4) TMI 215X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7 to 2001-02, whereby the appeals filed by the assessee have been dismissed. 2. The brief facts of the case are that on 27.11.2001 notices under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') in the case of Shri Sajiv Vohra, Individual were issued for the Assessment Years 1997-98 to 2000-01 for the reason that various investments made by him did not stand reflected in the original returns filed by him in his individual capacity. He was required to explain the investment made by him in acquisition of plot and purchase of Kisan Vikas Patras etc. He was also asked to explain the source of deposits made by him in various bank accounts with reference to the capital brought forward as on 1.4.1995. His capital account for the period 27.6.1991 to 31.3.1995 also revealed that he had credited the following income in his capital account as "by other income":- "1. 31.3.1992 77,000/- 2. 31.3.1993 1,00,000/- 3. 31.3.1994 1,00,000/- 4. 31.3.1995 75,000/-" 3. After receipt of the aforesaid notices on 31.3.2002, returns in the status of HUF were filed by the assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessments in HUF status were deleted on the premises that the same income could not be assessed twice over, in the hands of the individual as well as the HUF. 7. Against the aforesaid order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), the assessee filed appeals which have been dismissed by the ITAT vide order dated 16.06.2006, while observing as under:- "....we find that the findings recorded by the CIT(A) in this regard are categorical and Shri Vohra has not been able to controvert the same to any degree. The learned counsel has first off, contended that for the assessment year 1996-97, no substantive assessment has been made. But this is not so. As discussed hereinabove, the protective individual assessments have undisputedly attained finality, as not having been challenged. The status of HUF has not been proved. No positive evidence whatsoever has been brought to an otherwise effect. Rather, all the indication is, as observed by both the authorities below, to the contrary. To begin with, the HUF returns were filed belatedly, only on receipt of notice u/s 148 in the status of individual. The deposits in question were made in the hands of the individuals and not with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and being used against, rather than in favour of, the assessee. 8.13 To wit, the modus operandi of the assessee is self explanatory. Resipsa loquitor. It is merely by design that the status of HUF has been tried, albeit unsuccessfully, to be engineered by Shri Vohra, to suit his nefarious purpose of evading the tax which was the rightful and legitimate due of the Revenue. Such design must (sic) be allowed to succeed." 8. Against the aforesaid impugned orders, the instant appeals have been filed in which the assessee has raised the following substantial question of law for consideration of this court:- Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the ITAT was justified in confirming the action of the authorities below in not accepting the legal status of HUF having legally created as per provisions of law through valid gift deed/affidavit of the donor being the mother of the appellant (Annexure A-7) clearly dispelling her wishes and thus finalizing the assessment on substantive basis in the hands of Individual and protective in the hands of HUF which is against the established principles of law, thus, needs to be quashed? 9. We have heard the arguments of the le ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urther submitted that in the instant case, the assessee, his wife and his children constitute the Joint Hindu Family property and the gift made by his mother for the benefit of the joint family of the assessee, was sufficient in creating the HUF and any income derived from the said nucleus should have been treated as the income of the Joint Hindu Family. While referring to the decision of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Satyendra Kumar [1998] 232 ITR 360, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that where a gift made by a grandmother for the benefit of the entire family of her son and from the said amount, the son acquired the property and started doing business, the income from such property was treated as the income of the HUF. 11. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant and going through the impugned orders, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned order passed by the ITAT as in our view no substantial question of law is arising from the order passed by the ITAT. In the instant case, though the assessee has taken the stand that after getting married and receiving the gift of Rs.20,000/- from his m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
