9911796707
Case Laws
Acts
Notifications
Circulars
Classification
Forms
Manuals
Articles
News
D. Forum
Highlights
Notes
🚨 Important Update for Our Users
We are transitioning to our new and improved portal - www.taxtmi.com - for a better experience.
⚠️ This portal will be discontinued on 31-07-2025
If you encounter any issues or problems while using the new portal,
please
let us know via our feedback form
so we can address them promptly.
Follow us:
|
Home
Issues:
1. Validity of notices issued under s. 148 2. Double assessment of income in the hands of the assessee 3. Application of s. 292B of the ITA, 1961 4. Merits of the assessments made by the ITO Issue 1: Validity of notices issued under s. 148 The case involved notices issued under s. 148 to the assessee for not filing income tax returns. The assessee argued that the notices were invalid as they were addressed to a deceased individual and were not received by any authorized representative. The Department contended that any defect in the notices did not invalidate them as per s. 292B of the ITA, 1961. Issue 2: Double assessment of income in the hands of the assessee The Tribunal found that the income in question had already been assessed in the hands of the assessee as an HUF. The ITO proceeded to assess the same income in the assessee's individual capacity, leading to double assessment. The Tribunal concluded that the ITO was not justified in making fresh assessments without proper consideration of the assessee's status as an HUF. Issue 3: Application of s. 292B of the ITA, 1961 The Tribunal discussed the applicability of s. 292B, which states that any defect in the issue of notices does not invalidate them if the proceedings are in conformity with the intent of the IT Act. The Tribunal found that despite defects in the notices, the assessee's representative had attended the proceedings and raised objections, curing the defects as per the provision of law. Issue 4: Merits of the assessments made by the ITO The Tribunal held that the assessments made by the ITO were invalid in law due to the double assessment of income and the failure to properly consider the assessee's status as an HUF. The Tribunal quashed the assessments, noting that the remaining incomes assessed in the individual capacity were nominal and did not warrant tax liability. The Tribunal also did not address the alternative contention of the assessee regarding reductions in the additions. In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed both appeals and quashed the assessments made by the ITO, citing the double assessment of income and the failure to consider the assessee's status as an HUF as key reasons for invalidating the assessments.
|
