TMI Blog1991 (1) TMI 132X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5, since the family was defunct on the date of the assessment order ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, was the Tribunal right in law and in facts in holding that the assessments are null and void ?" The matter arises under the Wealth-tax Act for the assessment years 1970-71 to 1973-74. The respondent, as the karta of the Hindu undivided family, filed returns for the above four years. The return for the year 1970-71 was filed on October 5, 1970, and, thereafter, the returns for the other three assessment years were filed. Subsequently, on January 12, 1978, revised statement of wealth was filed by the assessee for all the assessment years. The assessments were completed on January 3, 1983. After the filing of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he respondent/assessee, Mr. C. Sankunny. On a fair reading of the order of the Appellate Tribunal, we are of the view that the Appellate Tribunal acted in undue haste in disposing of the appeals, by holding that in view of Madhavan Nambiar's case [1988] 169 ITR 810, the assessments could not have been made on the assessee (HUF) and so they are null and void. It is settled law that assessment proceedings start either by the filing of a return by the assessee or by the issue of a notice by the assessing authority. It will be pending till a final order of assessment is made in regard to the return filed-See Ghanshyamdas v. Regional Asst., CST [1963] 14 STC 976 ; [1964] 51 ITR 557 (SC). In this case, the assessments were pending on the day when ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nct entity" could be taxed at all. The procedure to be adopted was in issue. Whether the proceeding initiated was proper or valid alone arose for consideration. Notice was issued to a person who was only a junior member when the family existed. The question arose as to whether the service of notice on such a person was valid or sufficient to effect the assessment. It is in that context that this court quashed exhibit P- 1 notice by holding that, on the day when the notice was issued, there was no Hindu undivided family in existence and service of notice on a junior member of the erstwhile Hindu undivided family is not valid in law. On the date of such notice, the said person was only a tenant-in-common with no representative capacity. The c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion in this case. The peculiar facts in this case were not borne in mind in blindly applying the decision in Madhavan Nambiar's case [1988] 169 ITR 810 (Ker). We hold that the Appellate Tribunal was in error in setting aside the assessment orders on the basis of Madhavan Nambiar's case [1988] 169 ITR 810 (Ker). We decline to answer the questions in the form referred to us, since other aspects relevant to the issue have not been adverted to and adjudicated upon but at the same time, we direct the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to restore the appeals to file and pose the question that arose for consideration, on the facts of this case, from a correct perspective and dispose of the appeals in accordance with law. The references are disposed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
