9911796707
TMI Blog1969 (10) TMI 1X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... karuppan Chettiar and his sons forming a separate family on the other. Following up this claim the returns in response to the notice under section 22(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1922 (hereinafter called the Act), issued to the family for the assessment years 1950-51, 1951-52 and 1952-53 were made by Karuppan Chettiar in his individual capacity showing the income from the several sources that fell to his share. The Income-tax Officer rejected the claim of partition and assessed the Hindu undivided family for the aforesaid three years treating Karuppan Chettiar's returns as the proper returns for the family. An appeal was made by the assessee to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner in which complete partition as required by section 25A of the A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee's hands. The return of income in this file relates to the alleged share of income consequent on partition. Since partition has not been accepted, this file has only to be clubbed with the father's file. If, for any reason, it is ultimately held on appeal that a separate assessment should be made, it will no doubt be possible to take action under the provisions of section 34 as now amended. Since there is no separate income, the pending proceedings will be closed as N. A. and for income-tax year 1953-54 the file will be removed and clubbed with the family file F. 1005-A." The Income-tax Officer in giving effect to the aforesaid order of partition under section 25A of the Act and cancelling consequentially the family assessments, s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the judgments of this court in Income-tax Officer v. Murlidhar Bhagwandas and N. Kt. Sivalingam Chettiar v. Commissioner of Income-tax. In our opinion, the orders passed by the income-tax authorities and confirmed by the Tribunal suffer from a fundamental defect. As we have already stated, 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) of the Act. By his order dated June 18, 1953, the Income-tax Officer closed the assessments as "no assessments" and added that since there was no separate income, the pending proceedings would be closed as N. A. and for income-tax year 1953-54 the file would be removed and clubbed w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s that the Income-tax Officer did not intend to conclude the proceedings before him. It follows, therefore, that there is no disposal of the voluntary returns made by the respondent for the assessment years 1950-51, 1951-52 and 1952-53. It is manifest that the assessment proceedings under section 34(1) of the Act for the aforesaid three years are invalid. In the Estate of the late A. M. K. M. Karuppan Chettiar v. Commissioner of Income-tax it was held by this court that notices under section 34 could not be issued against Karuppan Chettiar in his individual capacity unless the returns which had been filed by him are also disposed of and the assessments made pursuant to the notice under section 34 were, therefore, invalid for the three yea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
