TMI Blog1985 (7) TMI 10X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... orders dated October 31, 1977, respectively, for the assessment years 1974-75, 1975-76 and 1976-77, the petitioner filed his objections in which he never raised a question as to whether the notice was bad for not having sent separate notices to him, one in his capacity as the manager of the Hindu undivided family properties and the other as the trustee of the trust properties. He filed the return ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e assessee: (1) in his capacity as the manager of the Hindu undivided family properties; and (2) as the trustee of the trust properties. The questions referred to this court under section 60(3) of the Act read as follows : " (1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessments for the years 1974-75, 1975-76 and 1976-77 have been validly initiated under section 35 of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... does not enure for the benefit of the public ; " There is absolutely no contention, much less evidence, to show that the properties held under trust would enure for the benefit of the public. Therefore, the second question has to be answered in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee, and we do so. As far as the first question is concerned, there is no dispute ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... respect to the properties belonging to the Hindu undivided family, without disclosing either he had other properties or that he was holding land in any other capacity. The Agricultural Income-tax Officer had been very careful in dealing with the assessee inasmuch as, instead of clubbing together the entire income, what he did was to assess him separately on the income derived from the Hindu undivi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... are cases which could be distinguished on facts. On the other hand, we find authority for the proposition that merely for the reason that there was defect in the notice issued, the assessment was not liable to be quashed (Mahabir Prasad Poddar v. ITO [1976] 102 ITR 478 (Cal)). We also find support for this view taken in Mohd. Haneef v. CIT [1955] 27 ITR 447 (All) and Balchand v. ITO [1969] 72 ITR ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
