1985 (2) TMI 58

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... AAC. Before him, besides the evidence and the reasons advanced before the ITO, some more evidence was led to show that the correct status in which the income was earned by the assessee was that of HUF. The AAC accepted the assessee's contention and held that the status of the assessee will be that of HUF. He accordingly allowed the appeal. 3. The Department is now in appeal before us. Besides claiming that the AAC had erred in accepting the status of HUF, it is also contended before us that he had further erred in accepting fresh evidence in violation of r. 46A of IT Rues, 1962. 4. On behalf of the assessee, there were two submissions. The first was that once the return had been submitted in the status of HUF, the ITO had no jurisdict .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... st the HUF was not, therefore, an assessment under s. 27. That assessment was clearly barred by time and limitation was not saved by the second proviso to s. 34(3). The same person can be taxed both as in individual as well as the Karta of his family. The two capacities are totally different. The individual and the HUF are totally different units of taxation they are two different assessee". The above principle was followed by the Allahabad High Court in the case of CWT vs. J.K. Srivastava Sons (1983) 34 CTR (All) 319 : (1983) 142 ITR 183 (All). In this case, the assessee had filed its wealth-tax return in the status of an AOP. The WTO rejected the contention of the assessee that no wealth-tax was chargeable as an AOP and assessed i .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ce to the provisions of the IT Act, 1922. As a clarification, he pointed out that while no appeal had been provided in the Act of 1922 against the change of status, but that such an appeal had been provided in s. 245(1)(c) of the Act. In his opinion, therefore, the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in the above case had undergone a change. He further submitted that the decision of Allahabad High Court in J.K. Srivastava Sons had equally no application as it related to wealth-tax and not to income-tax. In support of his contention, he referred to the decision of Rajasthan High Court in Munnilal Shivnarain Kothari vs. CIT (1984) 42 CTR (Raj) 11 : (1984) 149 ITR 567 (Raj). In this case, the Rajasthan High Court distinguished the decis .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X