Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2020 (2) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (2) TMI 360 - HC - Income TaxStatus of HUF - Time limit for completion of assessment - scope of the term "Direction" u/s 153 - Exclusion of certain period - Validity of directions made by ITAT to make assessments Harnarayan Bhagat and his three sons in the new status of Individuals / HUFs after holding that the earlier assessments made in the status of HUF / Individuals were not correct - HELD THAT:- Validity of directions made by ITAT to make assessments Harnarayan Bhagat and his three sons in the new status of Individuals / HUFs after holding that the earlier assessments made in the status of HUF / Individuals were not correct. Shri Harnarayan Bhagat was assessed in the status of HUF as Karta in respect of the business carried on in the name of Shri Radhakishan Balkishan. A partial partition of HUF business took place on 13/11/1974 in which Smt. Bansibai W/o Harnarayan, Shri Harnarayan and their three sons were given equal shares. The said partial partition was accepted by ITO under Section 171 of the Act of 1961. No business assets were left in the HUF and business of HUF came to an end after the said partition. Since wife of Harnarayan Bhagat was also allotted her equal share in the above partial partition, so far as the HUF of Harnarayan Bhagat is concerned, Harnarayan was left as the sole surviving coparcener in said HUF and his status was converted into an individual in respect of assets allotted to him in the above partial partition, however, despite the said position, Shri Harnarayan wrongly filed the returns in the status of HUF. Similarly the three sons of Harnarayan who were married having wife and children also wrongly filed their respective returns as individuals although their correct status on receipt of the property in partial partition was that of their respective HUFs. Assessments of Harnarayan Bhagat for various assessments years were completed in the wrong status of HUF by Assessing Officer on the basis of returns filed without examining his correct status post partition. Similarly assessments of his sons were completed in status as Individuals of his sons were completed in status as Individuals as against correct status of their respective HUFs which were challenged in appeals by all assessee on the ground that, mere admission of the assessees about wrong status could not bring liability upon them and Assessing Officer ought to have assessed them in the correct status, that is, Harnarayan ought to have been assessed in the status of individual and his sons ought to have been assessed in the status of their respective HUFs consisting of their respective wives and children. As regards the expression “direction” in Section 153(3)(ii) of the Act, it is now well settled that it must be express direction necessary for disposal of the case before the authority or Court. It must also be a direction which the authority or Court is empowered to give while deciding case before it. The expressions “findings” and “direction” in Section 153(3)(ii) must be accordingly confined. Section 153(3)(ii) is not a provision enlarging the jurisdiction of the authority or Court. The direction given by the ITAT to make assessment in new status are clearly contrary to the law laid down by the apex Court in MURLIDHAR BHAGWAN DAS [ 1964 (1) TMI 5 - SUPREME COURT], N KT. SIVALINGAM CHETTIAR [1967 (3) TMI 16 - SUPREME COURT], FORAMER [2000 (8) TMI 45 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] and GUPTA TRADERS [ 1981 (12) TMI 36 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] and the order of the ITAT to the aforesaid extent deserves to be quashed and is accordingly quashed in all the appeals. The question of law answered is in favour of the assessee.
|