9911796707
TMI Blog1970 (3) TMI 47X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and Govindji were dead. The deed of partition was execnted on May 10, 1944 : On September 23, 1944, an application was made under section 25A of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, for an order to record the factum of partition. On February 28, 1945, the said application was allowed, but the date of partition was taken to be September 9, 1944, the date on which the deed of partition was registered. This order was set aside in appeal and the application under section 25A was allowed recording the partition with effect from October 29, 1943. From 1945-46 to 1961-62, assessments were made on the three separate branches in their individual capacities. On March 29, 1965, March 30, 1965, and January 7, 1967, notices were issued under section 148 of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd rightly ; this is not the stage at which this court would go into the merits. We do not, therefore, propose to deal with the merits of the case. The sole question for determination in this writ application is whether the notices for reopening the assessments is within the jurisdiction of the taxing authorities so long as the order under section 25A subsists. The order under section 25A records the partition claimed by the members of the erstwhile Hindu undivided family. If, after enquiry, the Income-tax Officer is satisfied that there has been partition by metes and bounds, then the partition is recorded. Without such an order the divided family is not entitled to any relief even though actual partition by metes and bounds might have ta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cer, A-Ward, Lucknow v. Backu Lal Kapur. But, as the High Court did not express any opinion, the Supreme Court remanded the case without expressing any view. The question was fully discussed by the Punjab High Court in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Ganeshi Lal Sham Lal . Their Lordships were clearly of opinion that the assessment cannot be reopened under section 34 of the old Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, so long as the order under section 25A recognising partition has not been set aside. This view was approved by the Supreme Court in joint Family of Udayan Chinubhai, etc. v. Commissioner of Income-tax. Their Lordships observed thus : In Commissioner of Income-tax v. Ganeshi Lal Sham Lal, the High Court of Punjab held that when an order r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
