TMI Blog1970 (3) TMI 47X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Damodar has no sons. Damodar Hansraj, with his sons, constituted a Hindu undivided family, governed by the Mitakshara School of Hindu law. On October 29, 1943, there was a partition by metes and bounds amongst Kalyanji, Sunderdas and Jagmohan as, by then, Damodar Hansraj and Govindji were dead. The deed of partition was execnted on May 10, 1944 : On September 23, 1944, an application was made under section 25A of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, for an order to record the factum of partition. On February 28, 1945, the said application was allowed, but the date of partition was taken to be September 9, 1944, the date on which the deed of partition was registered. This order was set aside in appeal and the application under section 25A was a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der the assessment cannot be reopened under sections 147 and 148 of the Income tax Act, 1961. The facts on the basis of which the notices were issued were also questioned. At the time of hearing, Dr. Pal did not canvass any question relating to the merits of the matter and rightly ; this is not the stage at which this court would go into the merits. We do not, therefore, propose to deal with the merits of the case. The sole question for determination in this writ application is whether the notices for reopening the assessments is within the jurisdiction of the taxing authorities so long as the order under section 25A subsists. The order under section 25A records the partition claimed by the members of the erstwhile Hindu undivided fam ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Income-tax Act, 1961, would be without jurisdiction so long as the order under section 25A of the Income-tax Act, 1922, recognising partition, stands. The aforesaid view is not bereft of authority. The question was canvassed before the Supreme Court in Income-tax Officer, A-Ward, Lucknow v. Backu Lal Kapur. But, as the High Court did not express any opinion, the Supreme Court remanded the case without expressing any view. The question was fully discussed by the Punjab High Court in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Ganeshi Lal Sham Lal . Their Lordships were clearly of opinion that the assessment cannot be reopened under section 34 of the old Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, so long as the order under section 25A recognising partition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
