9911796707
TMI Blog1969 (8) TMI 12X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... year 1944-45, the Income-tax Officer noted two cash-credits of Rs. 20,000 and Rs. 50,000 on October 28, 1942, and November 16,1942. These two items were treated by the Income-tax Officer as the assessee's income from undisclosed sources. The items were included in the assessment for the year 1944-45. When the matter went before the Appellate Tribunal, the Tribunal pointed out that the two items in question were within the financial year 1942-43. Consequently, they were really relevant to the assessment year 1943-44, and not to the assessment year 1944-45. Those items were, therefore, struck off from the assessment for 1944-45. Subsequent to that order of the Tribunal, the Income-tax Officer issued a notice to the assessee under section 34 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... February 22, 1952. This was some time after the partition of the joint family. It was, therefore, urged by Mr. Brij Lal Gupta that the assessment of the joint family is invalid. On the other hand, Mr. Gopal Behari, appearing for the department, pointed out that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner did not pass his order recognising partition till September 8, 1952. That was after the assessment order had been passed by the Income-tax Officer. Mr. Brij Lal Gupta contended that the matter is governed by sub-section (2) of section 25A of the Act. Section 25A deals with assessment after partition of a Hindu undivided family. Under sub-section (1) of section 25A the competent authority records an order to the effect that the Hindu undivided fa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Appellate Tribunal to give appropriate directions as contemplated by sub-section (2) of section 25A of the Act. But, as pointed out by the Tribunal, even sub-section (2) of section 25A provides for assessment of the total income received by the joint family as such as if no partition had taken place. So, even if the procedure laid down in sub-section (2) of section 25A were to be followed, the assessee could not avoid assessment on the footing that the family was joint. Mr. Brij Lal Gupta relies upon a decision of the Andhra Pradesh High court in Additional Income-tax Officer v. A. Thimmayya. In that case it was held that where an order under section 25A was passed recognising partition of a Hindu undivided family as having taken place o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rtition on January 21, 1940. There is thus clear authority in support of the proposition that, even though there has been partition of a joint family and such a partition has been recognised under section 25A(1) of the Act, it is permissible to asses& the erstwhile undivided Hindu family. It was pointed out on behalf of the assessee that sub-section (2) of section 25A contemplates certain steps as regards apportionment of liability among members of the family in addition to the assessment of the family, as such. The question of apportionment does not arise in the present reference. For purposes of the present reference, it is sufficient to note that the assessment in the name of the Hindu undivided family is valid. We answer the question ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
