9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (2) TMI 164X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... art owner of the building in relation to his share in such rental income. One of such eight owners, Sumitra Devi filed such returns for the assessment years 1991-92 to 1997-98 which were accepted. Subsequent thereto for the assessment year 1998-99, on scrutiny of return of Sumitra Devi, it was found that she was not the part owner of the building but the real owner of the building was the review-petitioner/appellant, Hindu undivided family. On such finding notice under section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was issued and thereupon under section 143 of the Act, the assessment of the income of such building for the relevant years was assessed in the hands of the appellant/review-petitioner citing him as the owner of the building. 2. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent was acted upon. The apex court found that none of those documents were produced before this court, Therefore, vide order dated January 17, 2008, the appellant/review-petitioner was permitted to move this court by way of review/clarification and the hearing of the S. L. A. was kept to stand over for eight weeks. 7. Thus, the hearing of the S. L. A. remained pending for decision of the hon'ble Supreme Court. In the mean time, the appellant/review-petitioner was permitted to produce those documents, i.e., the municipal tax receipts before this court by way of review/clarification, It is in view of that order that the appellant/review-petitioner has filed the receipts before this court along with a review petition and seeks the finding ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... umn 22 of each of the extracts that a subsequent change in regard to the ownership of the holding in favour of these six persons was made with effect from March 30, 1990. On the basis of the subsequent change in favour of the aforesaid six persons with effect from March 30, 1990, as pointed out from column 22 of the extract, it was argued that since that date, the aforesaid six persons were recorded in the municipal tax assessment record as owner of the holding and they have been paying municipal taxes separately as separate and individual owner of the holding. In view of such separate assessment and payment of municipal taxes separately by the above six persons, it was sought to be impressed on behalf of the review-petitioner that those si ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cie the extracts from municipal register and the receipts show that due to subsequent change with effect from March 30, 1990, the aforesaid six persons, namely, (1) Smt. Sumitra Devi, (2) Raj Kumar Singh alias Shailesh Kumar, (3) Dilip Kumar Singh alias Manish Kumar, (4) Shiv Shankar Prasad Singh, (5) Sanjay Kumar Singh and (6) Rajesh Kumar have been assessed separately as owner for the purpose of realization of municipal taxes, but there is nothing to show as to in whose name or in what capacity the holdings stood prior to subsequent change taking effect from March 30, 1990, and as to what was the mode or manner of change, i.e., sale, gift or partition. 14. A very striking feature of the case is that the income of the building has been ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... id family arrangement dated April 21, 1989. 16. During argument, the review-petitioner cited the case of Bal Kishen Das v. Ram Narain Sahu 30 IA 139 wherein it was held that where "Ikramama" entered into between the four members of a Hindu joint family stated in unambiguous term with definite share in the whole estate had been allotted to several co-parceners, that effected a separation in estate and its legal construction and effect could not be controlled or altered by the subsequent conduct of the parties. 17. The case of Girija Nandini Devi v. Bijendra Narain Choudhury, AIR 1967 SC 1124, was also cited wherein it was held by the apex court that once the shares are defined whether by agreement between the parties or other ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... escendents. 20. On the basis of, as held in the above cited decisions, learned counsel for the appellant/review-petitioner sought to impress upon this court that there was a complete partition in the Hindu undivided family in view of the family arrangement dated April 21, 1989, and that any subsequent conduct of the parties as recorded in the lease dated December 28, 1989, contrary to the factum of partition does not make the family joint. Thus, in this effort the review-petitioner tried to challenge the findings of this court that there was no partition in the family inasmuch as the family arrangement as recorded on April 21, 1989, did not ever take effect. It has to be mentioned here that the finding of this court on the point as rais ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
