TMI Blog1968 (8) TMI 12X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ded family till the assessment year 1948-49. In the course of assessment proceedings for 1949-50 it was claimed on behalf of the Hindu undivided family that the properties and the several businesses of the family had been partitioned between Karuppan Chettiar on the one hand and Muthukaruppan and his sons forming a separate Hindu undivided family on the other. For the assessment years 1950-51, 1951-52 and 1952-53 Karuppan Chettiar, pursuant to the notices under section 22(2) issued to the Hindu undivided family, submitted returns in his individual capacity in respect of the income from several sources that fell to his share at the partition. The Income-tax Officer rejected the claim of Karuppan Chettiar that there had been a partition of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n March 2, 1957, under section 34 of the Income-tax Act to Karuppan Chettiar for assessment of his income as a separated member for the assessment years 1950-51, 1951-52 and 1952-53. In compliance with the notices Karuppan Chettiar submitted returns of his income for the three years in question under protest. The Income-tax Officer ignored the protest and assessed the income of Karuppan Chettiar by his order dated March 31, 1957. The appeals filed by Karuppan Chettiar to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal were unsuccessful. The Tribunal held that, since the Appellate Assistant Commissioner had made a direction under his original order to assess the divided members separately, the Income-tax Officer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nfirmity. As we have already observed, Karuppan Chettiar submitted returns of his income in his individual capacity for the years 1950-51, 1951-52 and 1952-53 in response to the notice issued under section 22(2). The Income-tax Officer purported to treat those returns made on behalf of the Hindu undivided family and to assess the Hindu undivided family in respect of that income. That order was set aside. The returns submitted by Karuppan Chettiar in his individual capacity were, therefore, never considered and no assessment was made of Karuppan Chettiar as an individual on those returns. Karuppan Chettiar submitted fresh returns in February, 1955, and June, 1956, before the notice under section 34 was issued on March 2, 1957. The notice und ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (3) had not been disposed of ". Before the Tribunal also that contention was raised (vide paragraph 9 of the statement of case). The question was raised before the Tribunal. Even if it was not expressly dealt with by the Tribunal, it still arose out of the order of the Tribunal: Commissioner of income-tax v. Scindia Steam Navigation Co. Ltd. The appeals are allowed. The answer recorded by the High Court is discharged and is substituted by the answer that the assessments made by the Income-tax Officer pursuant to the notice under section 34 of the Income-tax Act, 1922, were invalid. The appellants will be entitled to their costs in this court and in the High Court. One hearing fee. Appeals allowed. - - TaxTMI - TMITax - Income Tax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
