TMI Blog2011 (3) TMI 1781X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) or under any provision of the Act for that purpose. For better appreciation of facts and to be brief at the same time, we proceed to decide them by a common order. 2. The undisputed facts in relation to all these appeals are that M.Pranuthi, who was admittedly, a minor during the relevant years, was born on 14.12.1990. On 28.6.1993, she was traveling in a car alongwith her parents and paternal grandmother. The car met an accident in which she only survived. She was separately assessed to income-tax for the assessment year 1992-93. After insertion of section 64(IA) with effect from the assessment year 1993-94, her income from rent and interest relating to the period from 1.4.1990 to 5.7.1993 was clubbed with her father s inco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ide/cancelled by the ITAT, Chennai Benches, being a debatable matter outside the purview of section 143(1). Thereafter, no assessment u/s 143(3) was made at all for assessment year 1994-95. The Tribunal in its order dated 2.9.2005, passed for assessment years 1995-96 to 1999-2000 reported in (2005) 97 TTJ (Chennai) 801, in the case of R.P.Sarathy for Minor M.Pranuthi vs JCIT, after considering the CBDT Circular No.754 dated 10.6.1997, 226 ITR (Statute) 9, issued in connection with VDIS, 1997, has categorically held that there is no provision in the Act to assess the income of the minor in the hands of either minor or in the hands of her grandparents or any of their relative, but can be assessed in the hands of either of her parents. Such an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion 160(1)(ii) have not been considered on their merits although admittedly in the order dated 5.10.2007 passed for assessment years 2000-01 to 2002-03 in I.T.A. Nos. 2844, 2777 2778/Mds/2005, in assessee s own case, the question of representative assessee u/s 160(1)(ii) was raised vide Ground No.4 which has been incorporated at page 2 of the Tribunal order but the Tribunal has followed its own order in assessee s own case dated 2.9.2005 rendered in I.T.A.No. 833 to 839/Mds/2001 in which this section i.e 160(1)(ii) was not at all considered. The ld.DR, further argued the matter with reference to sections 4, 2(3), 2(7) and section 161(2)(iii) of the Act. He has also contended that in earlier years, the question was entirely different be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of CIT vs Hi Tech Arai Ltd, 321 ITR 477. We are in agreement with the ld.DR to that extent. The only grudge of the Department is that according to it, the provisions of section 160(1)(ii) were not considered in its correct perspective and these are relevant in the years under consideration. The provisions of section 160(1)of the Act are being extracted herein below for ready reference: Representative assessee.28 160. (1) For the purposes of this Act, representative assessee means- (i) in respect of the income of a non-resident specified in 29[***] sub-section (1) of section 9, the agent of the non-resident, including a person who is treated as an agent under section 163; (ii) in re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... minor and other, the guardians or manager , who is entitled to receive or is in receipt of such income on behalf of such minor etc. The other inclusive definition of representative assessee has been given in sub clause(iii) of sub-section (1) of section 160 in respect of income which the Court of Wards, the Administrator General, the Official Trustee are any receiver or manager including any person, whatever his designation, who in fact manages property on behalf of another appointed by or under any order of a court, receives or is entitled to receive, on behalf or for the benefit of any person, such Court of Wards, Administrator General, Official Trustee, receiver or manager, is a representative assessee . Per contra, the ld. AR has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... do so through his/her natural guardian or next friend . Since grandfather was not considered as natural guardian, he has pursued the suit as minor s representative being her next friend. As per the copie(s) of Succession Certificate produced before us, Shri R.P.Sarathy has neither received nor is entitled to receive any property/income on behalf of the minor M.Pranuthi alias M.Mahalakshmi and whatever has been received by the minor in her own capacity and whatever has been received in succession from the estate of the deceased has been received by the minor in her own capacity. Thus, it cannot be said that Shri R.P.Sarathy is either the guardian as has been stipulated in the provisions stated above nor he is manager or Administrative ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
