9911796707
TMI Blog1982 (3) TMI 124X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n of Shri Jagir Singh, Banta Singh and Machhetar Singh, sons and legal heirs of Shri Bir Singh. The status declared in the return was that of a HUF. The GTO, during the course of assessment, noted that they were the legal heirs of Shri Bir Singh and also noted that there was a claim before him that the land was ancestral and the legal heirs received it through a Court decree dated 1-3-1973, by way of a family settlement. The GTO, however, rejected the claim made in the return by the assessee that it was a HUF because, according to him the Jat Sikh families are governed by the customary law. Not only this, the GTO adopted the status of an individual, as against the status of HUF shown in the return. It is common ground before us that no noti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... died on 1-8-1974 and as such, the assessment is bad in law and a nullity, and should be annulled. In order to support this it has been pointed out in the grounds of cross-objection that the AAC in the case of the wealth-tax assessment of Shri Bir Singh has already annulled the wealth-tax assessment on this ground vide appeal Nos. 979 and 983-WTL/78-79, dated 2-6-1980. 4. Before us, the revenue contended that the AAC should not have allowed the status of HUF without verification of the relevant facts. It was further contended that, the question of status was not before the Tribunal and the Tribunal could not go beyond the scope of the appeal. Relying upon the ratio of the judgment in the case of CIT v. Sumantbhai C. Munshaw [1981] 128 ITR ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... missions and we find that we have to first determine whether the GTO could adopt the status of individual when the legal heirs had filed the return in the status of HUF. The revenue is of the opinion that we cannot go into this issue but at the same time it is making a grievance in Ground No. 1 that the AAC erred in granting the status of HUF to the assessee. It has been held by the Chandigarh Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Inder Singh, cited on behalf of the assessee, that in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. K. Adinarayana Murty [1967] 65 ITR 607, the ITO/WTO/GTO is not competent to assess an assessee in the status different from what is declared in the return without serving such an assessee with a not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
