TMI Blog2002 (4) TMI 250X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion under the head 'Income from Salary' and being assessed accordingly for all the years. Remittances from the abroad used to be spent on religious purposes as per their direction were being shown in Part III of the Return of Income since the said fund did not belong to him. The assessments were originally completed on 8-3-1984 again re-assessed on 23-3-1987 pursuant to the direction of the first appellate authority in first appeal preferred by the assessee, 17-1-1985, 31-3-1986, 28-1-1987 and 31-3-1987 for the assessment years 1981-82, 1982-83, 1983-84, 1984-85, 1985-86 and 1986-87 respectively holding the status of the assessee as 'Individual'. Thereafter, after a Ion lapse of time, it was on 31-3-1992 notices under section 148 were issued as observed in the first appeal order dated 30-3-1995 for assessment years 1982-83 to 1986-87, on the basis of observations of the Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax (Audit), Hyderabad dated 28-6-1988 to assess the escaped income of the Oral Trust. The notices so issued under section 148 to the assessee for all the assessment years in question were without mentioning therein the status, but the status was subsequently clarified by the Assessing Of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to reopen the assessments of the assessee in a status different from the status in which he was already assessed, it was incumbent on his part to indicate the status in which the notices are issued. When the status was not indicated in the notices itself, the omission to do so certainly renders the notice as illegal and invalid. And in such factual aspects of the case subsequent clarification as to the status cannot validate the invalid notices and therefore, the assessments passed pursuant to such invalid notices are liable to be quashed. In support of such contention/submission, the learned Counsel for the assessee placed much reliance on several decisions of different High Courts on the issue, which will be discussed later on in his order. The learned DR, on the other hand, contended that the status of the assessee having been subsequently clarified by the Assessing Officer, the notices in question could not be said to be invalid, particularly when the assessee had acted upon in pursuance to such notices and participated in the proceedings. 4. Heard both the parties, gone through the orders of the authorities below and the written submissions along with various papers produce ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ware of the status of the assessee as individual having already assessed the assessee in the said status i.e., in the 'individual' capacity only on salary income. In the case of CIT v. K. Adinaravana Murty [1967] 65 ITR 607 Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that under the scheme of the Income-tax Act the 'individual' and the 'Hindu Undivided family' are treated as separate units of assessment and if a notice under section 34 of the Act is wrongly issued to the assessee in the status of an 'individual' and not in the correct status of 'Hindu Undivided family', the notice is illegal and all proceedings taken under that order are ultra vires and without jurisdiction. In the case of Shyam Sunder Bajaj v. ITO [1973] 89 ITR 317 Calcutta High Court, where the notices did not state that they were being served on the petitioner in any particular capacity, has held the said notices are liable to be quashed on the ground that notices are vague and not in conformity with the provisions of the Act. In the case of Ravinder Narain v. ITO [1974]96 ITR 612, Delhi High Court has held that notice under section 148 must be issued and addressed in the name of and must be served in accordance with law on t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Department sought to assess him in the status of 'Oral Trust' the status should have been mentioned in the notice itself. Without mentioning the status in the notice itself, the said notice cannot be taken advantage to start proceedings under section 148 against the 'Oral Trust'. Therefore, the assessment for all the years under consideration made pursuant to such invalid notice, in our considered view, must be quashed and those are quashed. 6. While parting with the case, we feel it necessary to observe here that while arguing the case the learned AR of the assessee also challenged the service of notice on the ground that no fund was raised inside the country nor there was any intention to create any fund in future for the trust. The trust was solely created by one individual from foreign country as the mission was an evangelic mission i.e., propagation of Christianity. Hence, the Revenue cannot question as to the source of funds and its expenditures. In this connection, he invited our attention to some of the decisions harping on the point as to the status and according to him the status of this particular trust does not come within the ambit of seven categories of persons as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
